Sit tight and think before you comment. But have fun. The challenge here is for relativists to produce ANY hard evidence in the form of actual data, not merely rhetoric, that show this scenario is not a valid conclusion. Don't bother saying "But that isn't what SR claims" because that is not at issue here.
Anytime one attempts to rationalize SR they are met with a variety of objections to scenarios meant to casually show concerns. While perhaps such objections may be valid mathematically or at some technical level, they often merely confuse the issue and really have no bearing on the underlying concern.
So over the years I have developed scenarios which I believe simplifies the issue and avoids the confusion from interjecting velocity addition, simultaneity, or acceleration or GR issues, etc., and give the actual predictions we should make.
Given:
A group of researchers that have full faith in relativity set out to conclusively prove the theory. Because they have faith in their mathematical model and can use it to do many calculations (predictions) they pre-compute a space flyby experiment as to what is expected of each clock using relavistic mathematics.
The experiment uses a deep space monitoring station and a space shuttle craft such that there are no near by gravitational enfluences and the test will only be conducted during inertial flight so GR is not a consideration.
A light beam trigger circuit is established for the shuttle to cross starting all clocks in the experiment and the shuttle will be first sent off into space where it makes a turn around and accelerates back becoming inertial just before crossing the light trigger at 0.8c such that all testing is done during inertial conditions.
At that velocity gamma = 1 2/3 or the shuttle dilated clock will only tick 6 ticks for every 10 ticks of the station monitoring clock.
All clocks are identical and functioning properly. The craft is equipped with some unusual control equipment based on understood relativity affects.
Since relativity predicts that the shuttle clock will only tick at 60% the rate of the station clock, a computer program is used onboard the shuttle to produce a corrected count of ticks of the shuttle clock such that the control shuts down the shuttle clock when the station clock has reached 20,000 ticks and shuts down the test. If relativity is to be believed this causes both observers to time the trip over a universally equal period such that tick rate times duration will display proper accumulated time of both clocks.
This of course will occur when the onboard shuttle clock reaches a count of only 12,000 ticks and the station 20,000 ticks - IF RELATIVITY IS A VALID THEORY and this proceedure for comparing motion affect on clocks avoids concerns of simultanety since we only care about tick rate not physical tick count.
So when the shuttle crosses the light trigger all clocks are set to zero and the computer program begins tracking the trip. Both observers are equipped with the latest in long range vision equipment. Both the station and the shuttle have a light that flashes with each tick so each can count the flashes of the other clock and compare them to his own clock tick rate.
The station observer notes that according to his observation of his clock and the shuttle tick rate that the shuttle clock is only ticking at 36% the rate of his clock. Not the anticipated 60%. Something is going wrong with the experiment. OMG! No! It can't be relativity is such a proven concept. There must be something wrong with the equipment. But we must finish this test and look at the data because this is really interesting.
The shuttle pilot observes the station clock and notes that the station clock is not ticking at 60% of his rate as expected but seems to be synchronized with his clock. What is going on. This can't be, the test is falling apart..
This is unexpected and really concerns the pilot because it isn't conforming with the predictions of Special Relativity but he lets the test continue.
When the station clock reaches 20,000 counts it stops and sends a coded light or radio signal to the shuttle stipulating that the test terminated and that based on the observed tick rate of the shuttle clock it should have stopped at 6,000 counts, not the 12,000 they expected according to SR..
The shuttle pilot notes that while his clock did stop just as it should using the computer conversion control at 12,000 counts and if SR is valid then the duration of the test was equal and tick rates should be different than what we observed.
The shuttle pilot signals the station and tells them that against his expectation he now predicts that the station clock must have stopped at 12,000 counts instead of the scheduled 20,000 counts and fears something has gone wrong with the test because surely SR can't be that wrong.
The boss orders the shuttle pilot to leave his clocks turned off and to return to base so they can compare them directly in a common frame and to review notes and try to figure out where they have gone wrong.
Back at base in the conference room the astute pilot realizes had he actually observed the station tick rate to be 60% of his own as predicted by SR then the station clock could only read 7,200 ticks, not 20,000 ticks as it was supposed to nor the 12,000 ticks his observation suggested it would.
But since the "Reality" on inspection is that his clock reads 12,000 ticks and the station clock reads 20,000 ticks, then it appears his clock indeed was ticking slower at 60% just as SR predicted it would.
Wait a minute SR prediction is right but observation is wrong says the boss and it doesn't consider how simultaneity might affect the test.
Certainly says the pilot. "You see there are two things at work here. Observational perception or an illusion of motion and physical responses of clocks to motion. But while it would seem that the clocks must stop simultaneously in a real-time universally, IF SR is valid then it is a moot point because the computer insures equal duration of the test.
Since my clock was actually running slower at 60% of the rate of your clock you percieved it as running 60% of its proper tick rate which was the unexpected 36% you observed and since my clock had actually physically slowed down to 60% of yours and yours hadn't slowed at all, the fact that I observered your clock slow to 60% made my observation seem they remained synchronized.
"But all this isn't according to SR theory" says the boss.
"Then we must change the theory to match the physical reality of our test, keep in mind we have never before actually observed clocks in relative motion, we have only compared clocks after they have had relative velocity.
What counts is that observations matche mathematically with the physical reality and the reality is only my clock ran slow and both our clocks only appeared to run slower than the actual proper tick rate that they were running at."
SR perception predictions are wrong because they are based on symmetry of relative motion and not actual velocity induced by frame changing and physical data observation.
Anytime one attempts to rationalize SR they are met with a variety of objections to scenarios meant to casually show concerns. While perhaps such objections may be valid mathematically or at some technical level, they often merely confuse the issue and really have no bearing on the underlying concern.
So over the years I have developed scenarios which I believe simplifies the issue and avoids the confusion from interjecting velocity addition, simultaneity, or acceleration or GR issues, etc., and give the actual predictions we should make.
Given:
A group of researchers that have full faith in relativity set out to conclusively prove the theory. Because they have faith in their mathematical model and can use it to do many calculations (predictions) they pre-compute a space flyby experiment as to what is expected of each clock using relavistic mathematics.
The experiment uses a deep space monitoring station and a space shuttle craft such that there are no near by gravitational enfluences and the test will only be conducted during inertial flight so GR is not a consideration.
A light beam trigger circuit is established for the shuttle to cross starting all clocks in the experiment and the shuttle will be first sent off into space where it makes a turn around and accelerates back becoming inertial just before crossing the light trigger at 0.8c such that all testing is done during inertial conditions.
At that velocity gamma = 1 2/3 or the shuttle dilated clock will only tick 6 ticks for every 10 ticks of the station monitoring clock.
All clocks are identical and functioning properly. The craft is equipped with some unusual control equipment based on understood relativity affects.
Since relativity predicts that the shuttle clock will only tick at 60% the rate of the station clock, a computer program is used onboard the shuttle to produce a corrected count of ticks of the shuttle clock such that the control shuts down the shuttle clock when the station clock has reached 20,000 ticks and shuts down the test. If relativity is to be believed this causes both observers to time the trip over a universally equal period such that tick rate times duration will display proper accumulated time of both clocks.
This of course will occur when the onboard shuttle clock reaches a count of only 12,000 ticks and the station 20,000 ticks - IF RELATIVITY IS A VALID THEORY and this proceedure for comparing motion affect on clocks avoids concerns of simultanety since we only care about tick rate not physical tick count.
So when the shuttle crosses the light trigger all clocks are set to zero and the computer program begins tracking the trip. Both observers are equipped with the latest in long range vision equipment. Both the station and the shuttle have a light that flashes with each tick so each can count the flashes of the other clock and compare them to his own clock tick rate.
The station observer notes that according to his observation of his clock and the shuttle tick rate that the shuttle clock is only ticking at 36% the rate of his clock. Not the anticipated 60%. Something is going wrong with the experiment. OMG! No! It can't be relativity is such a proven concept. There must be something wrong with the equipment. But we must finish this test and look at the data because this is really interesting.
The shuttle pilot observes the station clock and notes that the station clock is not ticking at 60% of his rate as expected but seems to be synchronized with his clock. What is going on. This can't be, the test is falling apart..
This is unexpected and really concerns the pilot because it isn't conforming with the predictions of Special Relativity but he lets the test continue.
When the station clock reaches 20,000 counts it stops and sends a coded light or radio signal to the shuttle stipulating that the test terminated and that based on the observed tick rate of the shuttle clock it should have stopped at 6,000 counts, not the 12,000 they expected according to SR..
The shuttle pilot notes that while his clock did stop just as it should using the computer conversion control at 12,000 counts and if SR is valid then the duration of the test was equal and tick rates should be different than what we observed.
The shuttle pilot signals the station and tells them that against his expectation he now predicts that the station clock must have stopped at 12,000 counts instead of the scheduled 20,000 counts and fears something has gone wrong with the test because surely SR can't be that wrong.
The boss orders the shuttle pilot to leave his clocks turned off and to return to base so they can compare them directly in a common frame and to review notes and try to figure out where they have gone wrong.
Back at base in the conference room the astute pilot realizes had he actually observed the station tick rate to be 60% of his own as predicted by SR then the station clock could only read 7,200 ticks, not 20,000 ticks as it was supposed to nor the 12,000 ticks his observation suggested it would.
But since the "Reality" on inspection is that his clock reads 12,000 ticks and the station clock reads 20,000 ticks, then it appears his clock indeed was ticking slower at 60% just as SR predicted it would.
Wait a minute SR prediction is right but observation is wrong says the boss and it doesn't consider how simultaneity might affect the test.
Certainly says the pilot. "You see there are two things at work here. Observational perception or an illusion of motion and physical responses of clocks to motion. But while it would seem that the clocks must stop simultaneously in a real-time universally, IF SR is valid then it is a moot point because the computer insures equal duration of the test.
Since my clock was actually running slower at 60% of the rate of your clock you percieved it as running 60% of its proper tick rate which was the unexpected 36% you observed and since my clock had actually physically slowed down to 60% of yours and yours hadn't slowed at all, the fact that I observered your clock slow to 60% made my observation seem they remained synchronized.
"But all this isn't according to SR theory" says the boss.
"Then we must change the theory to match the physical reality of our test, keep in mind we have never before actually observed clocks in relative motion, we have only compared clocks after they have had relative velocity.
What counts is that observations matche mathematically with the physical reality and the reality is only my clock ran slow and both our clocks only appeared to run slower than the actual proper tick rate that they were running at."
SR perception predictions are wrong because they are based on symmetry of relative motion and not actual velocity induced by frame changing and physical data observation.