Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[AlphaNumeric]

Now that includes a lot of people. I rather have my doubts you know them all.

Is that what you're reduced to? Being mindlessly hyperbolic in your interpretation? Wow, you really are desperate. Go ask your 165 IQ relative if I really meant everyone.

As I told you in the last message I will not continue to play this game. Either respond properly to the v = d/t issue or get lost.

So just to check, no reference, no Lorentz transform in your claims, no support at all. Yep, that must make your kids so proud of you.

Now lets go through your claimed 'problem' carefully.

Persons A and B sync their clocks standing at the same location. There's a marker post a distance L from where they stand. Person A doesn't move. Person B moves at velocity v, with gamma factor $$\gamma$$, to the marker. Instantaneously he reverses direction, without changing speed, and comes back to Person A. They compare clocks.

I want you to show me how you derive the two times measured by the two people. I'll then show you how to actually do it. Put your physics where your mouth is.

 

[MacM]

Is that what you're reduced to? Being mindlessly hyperbolic in your interpretation? Wow, you really are desperate. Go ask your 165 IQ relative if I really meant everyone.

So just to check, no reference, no Lorentz transform in your claims, no support at all. Yep, that must make your kids so proud of you.

Now lets go through your claimed 'problem' carefully.

Persons A and B sync their clocks standing at the same location. There's a marker post a distance L from where they stand. Person A doesn't move. Person B moves at velocity v, with gamma factor $$\gamma$$, to the marker. Instantaneously he reverses direction, without changing speed, and comes back to Person A. They compare clocks.

I want you to show me how you derive the two times measured by the two people. I'll then show you how to actually do it. Put your physics where your mouth is.

FOLKS notice alpha.... has no physics rebuttal but chooses to continue his baseless personal attacks. That certainly suggests who has the upper hand on this on.

As I have explained to you I have no interest in how SR computes what it computes because it is flawed at the basic physics level not the internal mathematics level.

The mathematics are designed to produce the desired final results based on the assumptions of time dilation and distance contraction. What I show you is that distance contraction does not produce the apparent time dilation affect claimed by SR.

Further your inclusion of frame switching voids the arguement that relative velocity causes time dilation . You are now computing time dilation for one person the one that accelerated and hence has actual velocity. Both observers have relative velocity but both are not affected.

Perhaps one day if you continue here long enough I may be able to break through that thick skull and make you understand your failure. It is not that you cannot predict time dilation. It is that you are not using relative velocity and you use an unnecessary assumption.

When time dilation is taken as being physically valid it applies to both frames and no length contraction is required.

I repeat now one of Einstein's famous and most appropriate quotes:

******************************************************

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain,
and as far as they are certain they do not refer to reality"

Albert Einstein

*********************************************************

Einstein was clearly a genius even though he was known to have made mistakes. But this statement certainly infers he knew he was making fools out of modern science and you.

He was laughing behind your back and so am I.

http://mac.usingphysics.yuku.com/fs/ls/id/382650

 

[James R]

MacM:

A CLOCK THAT ACCUMULATES 30 MINUTES GOING HALF WAY ON A TRIP THAT SHOULD TAKE 1 HOUR IS TICKING NORMALLY.

How do you know the trip "should" take 1 hour?

Because the stipulation for that particular trip was stipulated to be a 1 hour trip accordfing to the resting observer.

Ok. Then I have no problem with your SHOUTY statement above.

All clocks in the frame of the resting observer will show half an hour for half of the one hour trip. No problem.

Of course, clocks in the moving frame might well show half an hour for the WHOLE trip. In which case, they did not stay synchronised with the "resting" clocks, even though you say they did.

 

[Billy T]

...The mathematics are designed to produce the desired final results based on the assumptions of time dilation and distance contraction. ...

MacM I am beginning to worry about you. You may be on medicine that is affecting your thoughts. Math is not "designed" to achieve some desired result. Math is logic, very rigid well established logic, which starts with a few definitions and assumed rules. For example A + B = B + A, c(A + B) = cA + cB = Ac + Bc = (A + B)c etc. for what is normally considered to be math by the average person, but these rule are completely arbitrary and could be different. In fact are in math many learn in college. For example [a] is not equal to [a] if these square bracket items are more than single element matrices. BTW, originally quantum mechanics was in a Matrix form and fact that order reversed is different is the mathematical foundation of the uncertainity principle.

Pure math does not relate to anything. It is just a game that can get to be amazingly complex. For example, a fraternity brother of mine, also named Bill, got his Ph. D. in math (after years of study) by proving "Easton's Theorem" in less than a week of effort. I tried to understand it for a few hours but gave up - I just do not know enough math. I am sure you cannot even come close to understanding what it is about.
Here is the Wiki article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easton's_theorem

The application of math to physics is one of the great advances of mankind. This does require and claims to be about something. It assumes, in its axioms at least one statement about the real universe, and then follows the rules of some version of math to see what one can logically conclude. In the case of relativity two physics items are assumed to be true. These assumptions being about reality are testable, and have been many times with zero evidence of their being false. Thus, there is no evidence that what follows logically from them is false. Time dilation and contraction of space follow logically from these two well tested axioms.

You have only your claim that you know what is real and correct physics to disagree. However even if your version of physics were correct you would still be entirely wrong to assert that time dilation and space contraction are the axioms on which Special Relativity is based. I strongly suspect that one cannot invert the logic to come to the conclusion that speed of light and physics are the same in all inertial frames. For example from time dilation alone (you do not accept space contraction in your version of physics) can you logically derive that the melting temperature of lead is independent of its speed? (Physics is the same in all inertial frames.)

Again, I am worried about your mental health given the nonsense you have recently been posting, such as quoted above. I suspect your medicines are destroying your clear thought processes. Perhaps you are just too emotionally envolved now. If you think that may be the case - take a few days off - go fishing or what ever you like to do.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Ok. Then I have no problem with your SHOUTY statement above.

All clocks in the frame of the resting observer will show half an hour for half of the one hour trip. No problem.

Of course, clocks in the moving frame might well show half an hour for the WHOLE trip. In which case, they did not stay synchronised with the "resting" clocks, even though you say they did.

You are only 1/2 the way there. You still don't get it.

Physics mandates that when the traveling twin returns having gone 1/2 the distance he is already back and the resting clock still agrees with the 1/2 distance and 1/2 time result. Hence the resting clock also displays 1/2 not 1 hour as proclaimed by SR.

Look at the diagram again. Think about what going 1/2 distance in 1/2 time really says. It says both clocks tick at the same rate and therefore there is no time dilation as assumed by SR.

Einstein has pulled a clever bait and switch which you (and 100,000 others) have failed to catch. You are to caught up in the overall result of being able to make predictions mathematically and the complexiety of the presentation to look for such subtle physics flaws.

But the simple truth is basic physics mandates that the assumption by SR that distance contracts in the traveling frame is demonstrated invalid.

 

[MacM]

MacM I am beginning to worry about you. You may be on medicine that is affecting your thoughts. Math is not "designed" to achieve some desired result. Math is logic, very rigid well established logic, which starts with a few definitions and assumed rules. For example A + B = B + A, c(A + B) = cA + cB = Ac + Bc = (A + B)c etc. for what is normally considered to be math by the average person, but these rule are completely arbitrary and could be different.

If you choose to not refer to the "Rules" and not being designs that is your perogative but it doesn't alter the content of my post.

If you want to worry about anybody worry about yourwself since you apparently can't do 3rd grade arithmatic.

In fact are in math many learn in college. For example [a] is not equal to [a] if these square bracket items are more than single element matrices. BTW, originally quantum mechanics was in a Matrix form and fact that order reversed is different is the mathematical foundation of the uncertainity principle.

Pure math does not relate to anything. It is just a game that can get to be amazingly complex. For example, a fraternity brother of mine, also named Bill, got his Ph. D. in math (after years of study) by proving "Easton's Theorem" in less than a week of effort. I tried to understand it for a few hours but gave up - I just do not know enough math. I am sure you cannot even come close to understanding what it is about.
Here is the Wiki article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easton's_theorem

And all this huff does not address the issue. When are you going to address the issue. How is it that you think attacking me and ignoring the issue gets you points?

The application of math to physics is one of the great advances of mankind. This does require and claims to be about something. It assumes, in its axioms at least one statement about the real universe, and then follows the rules of some version of math to see what one can logically conclude. In the case of relativity two physics items are assumed to be true. These assumptions being about reality are testable, and have been many times with zero evidence of their being false. Thus, there is no evidence that what follows logically from them is false. Time dilation and contraction of space follow logically from these two well tested axioms.

SR assumes distance contraction. There is no physical evidence for it. It comes out by virtue of another assumption that there is no absolute frame.

In that case the assumption is based on the flawed concept that "Absence of Evidence" is "Evidence of Absence". A postive assumption based on a negative result. You can never conclude never based on current negative findings. It is bad science.

You have only your claim that you know what is real and correct physics to disagree. However even if your version of physics were correct you would still be entirely wrong to assert that time dilation and space contraction are the axioms on which Special Relativity is based.

I did not say that. You again make up your own interpretation. Relativeity is based on teh two axioms.

1 - Physics is the same in all inertial frames.

2 - The velocity of light is invariant

But within the mathematics length contraction is arbitrarily inserted to make physics match preconcieved ideas about the universe. Much like his inserton of the fudge factor to make the universe static and not expanding. Hmmmm, it seems that one was wrong as well.

I strongly suspect that one cannot invert the logic to come to the conclusion that speed of light and physics are the same in all inertial frames. For example from time dilation alone (you do not accept space contraction in your version of physics) can you logically derive that the melting temperature of lead is independent of its speed? (Physics is the same in all inertial frames.)

Here you go again interjecting false information trying to confuse those following this thread. If time dilates then frequency computed by a dilated clock would produce a different frequency.

Since frequency doesn't change the atomic virbation had to dilate equally with the clock. It is a clock as well tand hat is why radioactive particle decay changes with velocity. Hmmmmm.

Again, I am worried about your mental health given the nonsense you have recently been posting, such as quoted above. I suspect your medicines are destroying your clear thought processes. Perhaps you are just too emotionally envolved now. If you think that may be the case - take a few days off - go fishing or what ever you like to do.

No you are worried that you are stumped and have no real answer to the issue I raise.

 

[James R]

You are only 1/2 the way there. You still don't get it.

You don't get it.

Physics mandates that when the traveling twin returns having gone 1/2 the distance he is already back and the resting clock still agrees with the 1/2 distance and 1/2 time result.

You're hopelessly confused.

When the travelling twin returns, he has done the FULL TRIP, not half of it. He has gone the total distance for the trip (whatever that happens to be measured as in any particular reference frame).

Hence the resting clock also displays 1/2 not 1 hour as proclaimed by SR.

So you're claiming that, regardless of whatever the travelling clock is doing, the resting clock measures half the time it should for a particular trip.

You're off with the pixies.

 

[noodler]

MacM: I'm not sure if it's hit you yet, but a dogged rationalization posted in a science forum (even one with the prestige of sciforums /sarcasm) about SR and time and length contraction/dilation isn't going to make much of a dent.

You realize the subject is covered in most undergrad physics courses, even at 1st year level? If you claimed Lorentz contraction was wrong and "you can prove it" I doubt you would be enroled in a 2nd year class for long.

How do you explain all the students who understand SR and Lorentz? Are you seriously suggesting that the world of physics has been duped or "tricked" by Einstein, and his Nobel was a fraud?

 

[James R]

MacM:

Let me just add a point on v=d/t, your new favorite equation.

In relativity, if observer A (say, the ground observer) measures B (the traveller) as going at speed v, then B will measure A as also going at speed v but in the opposite direction.

In the twin paradox example with Lorentz factor 2, relativity says this:

In A's frame, B travels distance d in time t, giving speed v=d/t
In B's frame, the endpoints of B's journey travel distance d/2 in time t/2, giving speed v=(d/2)/(t/2) = d/t.

Now, in the wacky wacky nutso world of MacM, we have no length contraction. Therefore:

In A's frame in nutty MacM world, B travels distance d in time t, giving speed v=d/t
In B's frame, B travels distance d in time t/2, giving speed v=d/(t/2) = 2d/t.

In other words, in nutty MacM world, B says his speed is twice what A says it is.

This, of course, we have encountered before in nutso MacM fantasyphysicsland. This is MacM's famous (and incorrect) "velocity dilation" rearing its ugly head again.

(Galilean) Relativity would say that if car A drives along the road at 100 km/hr and car B drives in the same direction at 80 km/hr, then the speed of A relative to B is 20 km/hr, and the speed of B relative to A is 20 km/hr also, but in the opposite direction.

Nutso MacM fantasyphysics says in this situation that the speed of A relative to B is, say 20 km/hr, while the speed of B relative to A is something different - perhaps 40 km/hr or something. That is, provided that there aren't other nutty rules we don't know about in MacM imaginaryworld delusional pixie physics.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

FOLKS notice alpha.... has no physics rebuttal but chooses to continue his baseless personal attacks. That certainly suggests who has the upper hand on this on. [/SIZE]

I notice you utterly ignored my attempt to engage you in rational discussion where we both show the methods we think are used b y SR to obtain the prediction (or not) of time dilation and YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED IT WHILE CLAIMING IT DIDN'T EXIST. See, I can do that too.

What's the matter, is showing how you arrive at your claims a little too much to ask?

As I have explained to you I have no interest in how SR computes what it computes because it is flawed at the basic physics level not the internal mathematics level.

I asked you to provide your method. Because if that is different from the SR method then you have no basis for your whining. Your constant dodging of any such challenge suggests you can't put your physics where your mouth is.

Perhaps you need to call in help from your 165 IQ relative? Most be a grand total of 4 lines of algebra. You spent more time whining about why you won't do the derivation than you'd have spent doing the derivation.

Further your inclusion of frame switching voids the arguement that relative velocity causes time dilation . You are now computing time dilation for one person the one that accelerated and hence has actual velocity. Both observers have relative velocity but both are not affected.

You're the one whose thought experiment involves a $$\gamma=2$$ Lorentz factor'd person doing a round trip. I'm just trying to get you to go through your method carefully and then I'll point out where SR disagrees with you. If your own thought experiments are invalidated by your own claims, don't blame me.

He was laughing behind your back and so am

You still haven't told me if you tell your family you're superior to all the physicists in the world and how you're now correcting us all, as you're in retirement. Do you make such claims to your family?

 

[Billy T]

If you choose to not refer to the "Rules" and not being designs that is your prerogative but it doesn't alter the content of my post.

One can argue as you do here that the rules of mathematics are designed to achieve certain results, but your claim that they were designed to produce the standard SR results is NONSENSE as the rules of mathematic were established at least 100 years BEFORE any one even dreamed of relativity -I.e. back when everyone believed in absolute rest frames and motion etc.

...SR assumes distance contraction. ... the mathematics length contraction is arbitrarily inserted to make physics match preconceived ideas about the universe. ...

Totally false. Length of the moving frame, just like time dilation, does not occur in that frame - No physical changes as your false physics postulates. Both are MATHEMATICALLY DERIVED CONSEQUENCES of the two postulates of SR you mentioned.* For the 32nd time I tell you that the strange effects of SR result ONLY for using the units (seconds and meters) of one frame to DESCRIBE the events taking place in another. For the frame doing the description, they are real. E.g. the cosmic ray muons do pass down thru >100,000 feet of atmosphere (which is in Earth's frame) because (in earth's frame) their clocks are running slower than Earth's clocks are. Likewise in the frame of the cosmic rays where they are at rest, their half lives are the same as the muons at rest in the Earth's frame (Physic being the same in all frames) but the cosmic rays find (in their frame) that the earth’s atmosphere is only a couple of dozen meters thick as it is NOT in their frame. They are passing thru those gases which are at rest in some other frame and very rapidly moving in the rest frame of the cosmic rays.

I.e. it is real for Earth's frame that the cosmic ray muons are very time dilated. AND it is real for the cosmic ray's rest frame that the Earth's atmosphere is very contracted. If the separation between two cosmic rays was always 1 meter in their own frame, then in Earth's frame it would be a couple of centimeters. Likewise if they could be amazed, the cosmic ray muons would marvel at how long the muon at rest on Earth lives, before decaying.

That is the way reality is according to >100,000 Ph.D.s in the last 100 years. If you want to make the extraordinary claim that all this which follows mathematically from the two basic postulates of SR[/v] is all false, then you need some extraordinary evidence to avoid all simply knowing you are a crazy crackpot.

Certainly your postulates that space does not contract but mass does is only your opinion - not extraordinary evidence at all.

Certainly your postulate that there is a "physical change" in the moving frame is only your opinion - not extraordinary evidence at all.
In this case it is even self contradictory when more than two frames are considered (as I recently showed mathematically in post 1166) because one physical change in frame A, which is moving with respect to two other frames, cannot explain the two different contractions and time dilations that are real for them, but not the same.
(I even explained to you that your dragging in speeds wrt the CRF is why and how you "over determined" the solution of the problem - forced the speed of post 1166's "frame T" to have two different values at the same time!)

Certainly your postulates that the quantum theory predicted and confirmed (more than 10 significant figure agreement with measurement) spacing between energy levels of atoms is changed by speed is only your opinion - not extraordinary evidence at all.
This amazingly accurate THEORY is not to be discarded just because you state that the theory must change with speed. That is what is implied by you stating that the energy levels change. You may not fully realize that is what you are stating but the spacing of the energy levels determines for conservation of energy the frequency of the photons emitted by the atom when an upper state or excited electron drops to a lower energy state, producing the photon.

I.e. The periods of this radiation are thus invariant predicted by quantum THEORY. ATOMIC CLOCKS ACOUNTIG # OF THESE PERIODS to advance one second thus define the same duration second in their own frame. If you want to POSTULATE it is shorter due to physical change in the moving frame, then You MUST postulates that the THEORY, which so accurately predicts the period of the radiation, changes with speed of the frame. - It does not get much sillier than that - so that is NOT "extraordinary evidence." -That is MacM nonsense.)

------------------
*For you and me, who do not do the tensor math of General Relativity, it is better to state SR axiom about light as that its speed in vacuum is the same for all frames instead of that its velocity is invariant as in the simply Newtonian physic POV, the velocity does change as the light path bends in a gravity field, such as rays passing near the sun. (In GR's POV, the light still goes straight, but thru "bent space." So if you are well versed in GR it is OK to state this axiom with word 'velocity.')

BTW, calling me names or attacking me personnally does not reply to any of the above Certainly your postulates that ... is only your opinion - not extraordinary evidence at all. As always with crackpot theories, the burden of proof is on you and requires "extraordinary evidence" - not just opinions.

 

[MacM]

You don't get it.

You're hopelessly confused.

When the travelling twin returns, he has done the FULL TRIP, not half of it. He has gone the total distance for the trip (whatever that happens to be measured as in any particular reference frame).

I am not resdponsible for your failure to maintain continuity of physics. It is becaue you are exercising "DoubleThink":

*********************** Extract ***********************

http://www.orwelltoday.com/doublethink.shtml

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt.

Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing them and to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. Ultimately it is by means of doublethink that the Party has been able - and may, for all we know, continue to be able for thousands of years - to arrest the course of history...

So you're claiming that, regardless of whatever the travelling clock is doing, the resting clock measures half the time it should for a particular trip.

You're off with the pixies.

See above then reconsider the physics facts.

If you drive half the distance in one half the time of full distance then your clock has not dilated - PERIOD. If you clock has not dilated then it ticks in sync with the resting clock and upon arrival both clock display thecsame accumulated time.

Since that is not in agreement with empirical data that component of SR is falsified.

Time dilation is real but it ONLY requires a dilated clock NOT distance contraction. Does this require a bit of adjustment to our thoughts about physics. You bet but those adjustments are far more rational than SR.

Now get off your high horse and denial fit and address this simple physics and math fact:


Where TT is Traveling Twin and RT is Resting Twin

......____TT___..._RT_
v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t.

Put into english without all the excess text as relates to the twin paradox and claims by SR, it says.

The traveling twin and resting twin clocks both must read the same when the traveling twin returns home.

This proves your arguement is physically false.

 

[MacM]

MacM: I'm not sure if it's hit you yet, but a dogged rationalization posted in a science forum (even one with the prestige of sciforums /sarcasm) about SR and time and length contraction/dilation isn't going to make much of a dent.

You realize the subject is covered in most undergrad physics courses, even at 1st year level? If you claimed Lorentz contraction was wrong and "you can prove it" I doubt you would be enroled in a 2nd year class for long.

How do you explain all the students who understand SR and Lorentz? Are you seriously suggesting that the world of physics has been duped or "tricked" by Einstein, and his Nobel was a fraud?

It really is simple. The assumption does not violate mathematics and mathematically the process produces valid results.

While math is useful and describes physics (in most cases) it can not create physics.

SR attempts to create physics by it's mathematics. Einstein might well have been a victum of "DoubleThink" as well. It may not be fraud.

His quote about mathematics however raises that question.

I hope you can see past the tendancy to accept appeal to authority without question and at least consider this simple FACT of mathematics and physics:

Where TT is Traveling Twin and RT is Resting Twin

......____TT___..._RT_
v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t.

Put into english without all the excess text as relates to the twin paradox and claims by SR, it says.

The traveling twin and resting twin clocks both must read the same when the traveling twin returns home.

 

[MacM]

I notice you utterly ignored my attempt to engage you in rational discussion where we both show the methods we think are used b y SR to obtain the prediction (or not) of time dilation and YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED IT WHILE CLAIMING IT DIDN'T EXIST. See, I can do that too.

Extract of Alph's comments:"I notice you utterly ignored my attempt to engage you in rational discussion......"

In plain english means "You have declined to become indoctrinated even though I cannot refute your proof."

Like I have told you as long as you choose to make personal attacks and want to recite SR I have no interest in discussing anythign with you.

Now please explain to everybody how you propose to go 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the time and still claim clock tick time dilation.

Where TT is Traveling Twin and RT is Resting Twin

......____TT___..._RT_
v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t.

Put into english without all the excess text as relates to the twin paradox and claims by SR, it says.

The traveling twin and resting twin clocks both must read the same when the traveling twin returns home.

That is really a simple request.

You do that and then I will gladly step back and hear your SR explanations.

Failure to do that makes any discusssion of SR a complete waste of time.

BTW: You should think about my "DoubleThink" post as well.

 

[MacM]

BTW, calling me names or attacking me personnally does not reply to any of the above Certainly your postulates that ... is only your opinion - not extraordinary evidence at all. As always with crackpot theories, the burden of proof is on you and requires "extraordinary evidence" - not just opinions.

Far to long and far to off topic to even consider wasting time. You have posted a couple dozen personal attacks and not once attempt any valid physics response.

People have seen (and I proved) you have distorted and lied about what I have said and what I believe. I will not waste time addressing your BS any further.

Either address the basic physics issue of:


Where TT is Traveling Twin and RT is Resting Twin

......____TT___..._RT_
v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t.

Put into english without all the excess text as relates to the twin paradox and claims by SR, it says.

The traveling twin and resting twin clocks both must read the same when the traveling twin returns home.

BTW: You really should consider the "DoubleThink" issue as well.

 

[phyti]

phyti:
That is incorrect.

That is incorrect. The Lorentz transformations, by the way, are not about perception and are not a result of delays due to light signal travel times.

There is no absolute velocity. All that we need to know is the velocity of the spaceship relative to the Earth in the twin paradox scenario. The Earth's velocity relative to anything else won't affect the answer.

The space pilot actually measures the distance between his starting point and destination to be shorter than the Earth observer measures. This is special relativistic length contraction at work.

Try calculating the case when the S' frame is moving in the -x direction relative to the S frame. The transformation equations allow for + or - v.
If this were not true, you could not get the relativistic doppler shifts.

It is about perception, that's why SR is all about the observers role.
The fundamental difference from Newtonian to Relativity physics is the concept of time from an absolute for all to a observer dependent time.

From 'The Meaning of Relativity', Albert Einstein, 1956: page 1.
"The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criteria of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analysed further. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time."

When you move from the simplistic 1-dimensional examples to 2 or 3 dimensions, it might change your view.

 

[CptBork]

Where TT is Traveling Twin and RT is Resting Twin

......____TT___..._RT_
v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t.

Put into english without all the excess text as relates to the twin paradox and claims by SR, it says.

The traveling twin and resting twin clocks both must read the same when the traveling twin returns home.

Now this whole discussion is getting absolutely comical. Earth puts beacon 4 light years away. Travelling twin measures distance to beacon as being 2 light years. How hard can this possibly be? If this doesn't happen, how else do all observers measure the same speed of light when it's in their local frame? Even your hero Lorentz knew space contractions were necessary, Einstein just showed how they're needed in all reference frames, not just a preferred few.

By the way, your previous attempts to debunk space contraction and time dilation experiments, citing or dismissing papers you never bothered to read, were pretty damn weak. Einstein knew how to correctly predict these effects before they were measured, the best you could ever do without plagiarizing him would be to venture a rough and misinformed guess that would never properly fit the actual curve.

 

[CptBork]

Here's the article MacM cited in his attempt to disprove the successful confirmation of Einstein's predictions regarding particle lifetime dilation. Notice the article was published in 1996 in a crank magazine called "Apeiron", whose articles seem single-mindedly focussed on disproving multiple aspects of modern relativistic theories. A little Googling led me to this link from which you can browse a summary of their publications going back to 1992, including the articles contained within.

 

[MacM]

Now this whole discussion is getting absolutely comical. Earth puts beacon 4 light years away. Travelling twin measures distance to beacon as being 2 light years. How hard can this possibly be? If this doesn't happen, how else do all observers measure the same speed of light when it's in their local frame? Even your hero Lorentz knew space contractions were necessary, Einstein just showed how they're needed in all reference frames, not just a preferred few.

By the way, your previous attempts to debunk space contraction and time dilation experiments, citing or dismissing papers you never bothered to read, were pretty damn weak. Einstein knew how to correctly predict these effects before they were measured, the best you could ever do without plagiarizing him would be to venture a rough and misinformed guess that would never properly fit the actual curve.

LIke I said you can turn a blind eye to physical reality or you can question the assumptions you are making. I suggest you consider either light invariance is an illusionry feature of production rather than propagation or that there is an absolute velocity but local computed velocity is variable.

Wht is not debatable is:

Where TT is Traveling Twin and RT is Resting Twin

......____TT___..._RT_
v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t.

Put into english without all the excess text as relates to the twin paradox and claims by SR, it says.

The traveling twin and resting twin clocks both must read the same when the traveling twin returns home.

Above you assert that the traveling twin sees 1/2 the distance. You have nothing but SR propaganda to go by.

 

[MacM]

Here's the article MacM cited in his attempt to disprove the successful confirmation of Einstein's predictions regarding particle lifetime dilation. Notice the article was published in 1996 in a crank magazine called "Apeiron", whose articles seem single-mindedly focussed on disproving multiple aspects of modern relativistic theories. A little Googling led me to this link from which you can browse a summary of their publications going back to 1992, including the articles contained within.

I will only note that most anti-relativity is published in out of mainstream jorunals becasue they refuse to publish anything anti-relativity.

That is every paper produced and test claimed done must be repeated and verified by others. Each stands on their own quality.

I see nothing in terms of pointing out obvious flaws or tht any falsification testing has been done. All that is being done is wht you do which is point to the journal tht published it.

I'm rather sure mainstram rejected it or would reject it just as casually as you just have, without any actual consideration.

So I am not vouching for the test no more than I will vouxch for H&K since it is known they cheated and still got published becaue they were pro-relativity.