I, and 100,000 people better educated in physics than you during the last 100 years do.
Appeal to authority means nothing. Perhaps you might explain why all these super smart guys; plus you and James R haven't figured out that if you go half the distance, in half the time, at the same velocity, the clock tick rate does not change.
That that means without question both the resting clock and traveling clock tick in sync and hence no time dilation would be possible since the traveling twin returns home and the resting clock would then agree on the time accumulated.
The real physics answer in such a case would be the resting observer would have to compute and conclude that he cheated and went twice as fast.
ALL logic has some set of postulates as its foundation. (Thus you are illogical without any.) One can never prove they are true, but one can test the hell out of them looking for some contradiction. The two foundation postulates of SR have been tested thousands of times (zillions of times by accident as Earth's orbit about the sun is constantly changing it velocity thru space yet the values in physics handbooks have shown zero periodic change with a 365 day period.)
This has nothing to do with the issue. Even if the postulates were true (and they likely aren't) then the conclusions are clearly false. There are no options to ignore the fact that going 1/2 the distance and accumulating 1/2 the time means NO time dilation and both clock therefore accumulate the saem amount of time.
In contrast MacM's SR is not even internally self consistent as shown in several prior posts (118, 198 and others I may add by edit).
Funny I haven't present any SR. I have only shown that the current SR is falsified. I have also shown that only the accelerated frame ever permanently dilates. I have shown that spatial contraction does not exist and that ONLY clock time dilation matches em[irical data.
You and James R on the other hand have anc can only recite theory and ignore the physical consequences that I have properly presented.
Now if you disagree please explain just how going 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same velocity means there has been any time dilation or change in clock tick rates compared to the resting frame.
Go ahead wise guy your up. It takes a bit more than "That is what SR claims" because we know what SR claims and "I" know it isn't so.
Only dumb asses fail to understand such simple basic relationships as 60 Mph for 2 hours = 120 miles and 60 Mph for 1 hour = 60 miles and my clock has been unaffected in terms of tick rate. There is No dilation just because the distance changed and I accumulated less time.
Furthermore as SR's strange effects, such as SR computed contraction, Which MacM's SR claims are false, follow mathematically from these two very well confirmed postulates. MacM with no* basis assert that at least one of these two well confirmed postulates is false.
Again one zillion correct answers are completely falsified by ONE failure and SR is shown to fail. The failure is your interpretation of the data. Less accumulated time on a clock is not due to time dilation but is due less distance traveled and that would mean all clocks tick in sync in all frames. Since that is untrue then spatial contraction is untrue.
If clocks tick dilate once accelerated then the lesser accumulated time matches empirical data but there is NO spatial contraction.
*Perhaps it is more accurate to say MacM has a basis for claiming the speed of light is not constant, but his basis itself is false. MacM falsely claims speed of photon climbing out of gravity field well slows; instead of correctly knowing that its energy is decreased by the red shift.**(See MacM's post below)
FYI: That is not my basis for rejecting the invariance postulate. Invariance is an illusion caused by a misunderstanding about light propagation. I need not repeat that here.
But you are corrrect in tht Einstein said invariance can only be assumed where there is no gravity field (which is no cubic inch of the universe. He also said SR can still be applied IF gravity is sufficiently weak so as to be ignored.
Being ignored and not existing are two different issues.
**Not only has gravitational red shift been observed, but if the speed did decrease as MacM claims, then there would be a blue shift. But that is not unusual for MacM - he often has things exactly backwards.
To see MacM's slowing implies a blue shift, note speed of wave (even a water wave), S = L/P where L is the wave length & P is the oscillation period. If S is to decrease to only s, as MacM claims, then L must decrease if P duration of a cycle does not increase. But a shorter wavelength is a higher frequency or "blue shift", not the observed red shift. MacM rejects the correct red shift or longer period. Once again MacM's is predicting the opposite of what is observed fact!
Rejecting a longer period with a slowed down wave is correct and exactly what hapens as light slows down when passing thru glass, but the period (and frequency and energy) does not change. I.e. The space between peaks or waveleng this compressed while photon is inside the glass but this does not happen when photon is leaving a gravity field. Then it must lose energy (red shift or decrease frequency) so that the total energy is conserved. The compression of wave length is very obvious / easy to understand / if you consider the photon when front half is inside the glass not advancing as fast as the trailing part still in the air. - like a long line of toops marching with the front part slowed down by a muddy field. The space between the soldiers (or peaks of waves) decreases as they enter the mud (or the glass).
SUMMARY: I and >100,000 others prefer the standard SR as it is based on well confirmed postulates. We do not accept MacM's alternative has no confirmed postulates, is self contradictory and is based on (or makes) contra-factual assumptions, such as that the speed of light (instead of its energy) drops as photon climbs out of a gravitational well.
Here is the choice between two theories, One has:
(1) Has confirmed postulates - is self consistent - has predictions confirmed
AND other has:
(2)No postulates even stated*** - is self-contradictory - makes false predicitons
***Without postulated foundation, there is NO logic possible - only MacM's opinions server as the foundation.
PS Ican save MacM the trouble of responding by making his typical counter argument to logic and experimantal facts. Here it is:
"That is BS, you ass hole. I have shown you are false and you can not offer any empirical support for your POV. Now respond to my drawings. You can can you. That proves you don't have the slightest idea about physics. You just repeat the same old SR story without any thought."
********************************************************
“
Originally Posted by MacM
...Who in the hell wants SR postulates? Not me..
”
I, and 100,000 people better educated in physics than you during the last 100 years do.
ALL logic has some set of postulates as its foundation. (Thus you are illogical without any.) One can never prove they are true, but one can test the hell out of them looking for some contradiction. The two foundation postulates of SR have been tested thousands of times (zillions of times by accident as Earth's orbit about the sun is constantly changing it velocity thru space yet the values in physics handbooks have shown zero periodic change with a 365 day period.)
In contrast MacM's SR is not even internally self consistent as shown in several prior posts (118, 198 and others I may add by edit). Furthermore as SR's strange effects, such as SR computed contraction, Which MacM's SR claims are false, follow mathematically from these two very well confirmed postulates. MacM with no* basis assert that at least one of these two well confirmed postulates is false.
----------------
*Perhaps it is more accurate to say MacM has a basis for claiming the speed of light is not constant, but his basis itself is false. MacM falsely claims speed of photon climbing out of gravity field well slows; instead of correctly knowing that its energy is decreased by the red shift.**(See MacM's post below)
“
Originally Posted by MacM
{post 997}... the constancy of light is:
1 - Not actually invariant except in absent of a gravitational field; which excludes every cubic inch of the universe.
2 - I have clearly stated I believe the invariance that has been measured is a matter of an illusion. ...
”
**Not only has gravitational red shift been observed, but if the speed did decrease as MacM claims, then there would be a blue shift. But that is not unusual for MacM - he often has things exactly backwards.
To see MacM's slowing implies a blue shift, note speed of wave (even a water wave), S = L/P where L is the wave length & P is the oscillation period. If S is to decrease to only s, as MacM claims, then L must decrease if P duration of a cycle does not increase. But a shorter wavelength is a higher frequency or "blue shift", not the observed red shift. MacM rejects the correct red shift or longer period. Once again MacM's is predicting the opposite of what is observed fact!
Rejecting a longer period with a slowed down wave is correct and exactly what hapens as light slows down when passing thru glass, but the period (and frequency and energy) does not change. I.e. The space between peaks or waveleng this compressed while photon is inside the glass but this does not happen when photon is leaving a gravity field. Then it must lose energy (red shift or decrease frequency) so that the total energy is conserved. The compression of wave length is very obvious / easy to understand / if you consider the photon when front half is inside the glass not advancing as fast as the trailing part still in the air. - like a long line of toops marching with the front part slowed down by a muddy field. The space between the soldiers (or peaks of waves) decreases as they enter the mud (or the glass).
SUMMARYI and >100,000 others prefer the standard SR as it is based on well confirmed postulates. We do not accept MacM's alternative has no confirmed postulates, is self contradictory and is based on (or makes) contra-factual assumptions, such as that the speed of light (instead of its energy) drops as photon climbs out of a gravitational well.
Here is the choice between two theories, One has:
(1) Has confirmed postulates - is self consistent - has predictions confirmed
AND other has:
(2)No postulates even stated*** - is self-contradictory - makes false predicitons
***Without postulated foundation, there is NO logic possible - only MacM's opinions server as the foundation.