Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)

[James R]

MacM:

Why stop here why not finish the cycle. If they both run slow by equal amounts (due to relative velocity) then relative velocity can jproduce no measuremable differential in accumulated times on the clocks.

They don't run slow by equal amounts. In either frame, one clock runs slow and the other runs at normal speed. Hence, the difference in accumulated times.

Basic stuff.

As Baker points out, though MacM missed it of course, to bring clocks back and compare them requires that they accelerate, which destroys the symmetry.

You lie again. baker made no such statement.

See Baker's 2nd paragraph. He says that clocks in constant relativity motion "will never be together again...to check which one has less elapsed time on it."

Extrapolate. To bring them back together requires acceleration. You even agree with that:

However, I would agree that acceleration or non-inertial motion must occur to bringthem bvack together.

Of course, you go on to say this is:

1 - Moot since we are discussing only relative velocity affects.

2 - Since no data is taken dur non-inertial periods it has no bearing on the issue at hand.

I am not clear on whether you're discussing your clocks proposal here, or the H&K experiment, or something else.

Pardon me for getting absolutely frank here. Fuck you James R. I have witheld nor altered nothing in his response.

Except the 4th paragraph, of course. Liar.

Your allegations are outright false and slanderous.

You've admitted them.

I repeat:

I can only assume that whatever you are hiding does not support your position. Therefore, as always, you pretend it doesn't exist.

You're a fraud and liar, MacM.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

No answer? Point proven.

Nice tactic but it doesn't gain you anything. You will answer my questions and not divert this to my making definitions which you can drag this discussion off on tangents.

You will recall that I have never relied on the H&K experiment to prove relativity. Even if it is completely fraudulent and false (and I have no reason to think it is), it matters not a single jot to the correctness of relativity.

I would agree but the issue still survives the H&K falacy (and it was fraud BTW for you to not accept that is shear pig headedness). The issue is the reciprocity required by Relativity itself that A see B as 10 minutes slower, B sees A 10 minutes slower; hence there is no opportunity in a purely relative velocity scheme to develope any measurable time dilation affect on physical clocks.

You only brought it up as a diversion from the main game. Bait and switch.

For the record, you and others here have in the jpast crammed the idea that atomic clocks had been flown around the world and "Proved" relativity. It didn't happen and now that your masquerade has been exposed it is Bait and Switch. That is funny indeed.

For the record: MacM does not beleive time exists.

Now you're really getting nutty.

Actually, your proclamation has no merit what-so-ever. Perhaps you would enlighten us with your definiton of what is time. Go ahead explain time. Not how we use the concept but what is it.

I have an explanation. Do you?

You never raised that as an issue. Am I supposed to read your mind now?

No but you might start reading the posts. I have only mentioned this perhaps 6 times here. Now that you have read it how about addressing it.

Any, we can't talk about anything to do with reference frames until you understand what a reference frame is.

Your effort is frutless. My understanding of frames is not at issue. My statements are. If you can't address my statements then there is nothing clearly wrong with those statements. You will not draw me into some other pissing contest over things not at issue here. Address the issue if you can. If you can't then just say so.

I will wait until you provide a definition of "reference frame" before I respond to any further questions from you which require that concept.[/qluote]

Then it seems you lack any viable explanations for resolving the issues raised.

You need to get out in the real world. Go out in the street and ask the first stranger you see what clocks measure. The answer will be "time". I guarantee it. And highschool students won't say any differently.

And I would suspect, it would take only 5 - 10 seconds to convience them they were wrong, unlike you, most people actually think and digest new information.

I'm not on a hook.

Then give viable ansers and stop dancing all around the issues.

Already done. See the past 1500 posts to this thread.

None of which properly address the issue.

Follow it through. You work it out. Start using your brain, if you have one.

Ditto.

 

[James R]

MacM:

The issue is the reciprocity required by Relativity itself that A see B as 10 minutes slower, B sees A 10 minutes slower; hence there is no opportunity in a purely relative velocity scheme to develope any measurable time dilation affect on physical clocks.

Wrong. This whole thread is concerned with the relative rates at which clocks tick in different reference frames. If A ticks off 20 minutes while B ticks off 10 minutes, then we have time dilation, pure and simple.

For the record: MacM does not beleive time exists.

Actually, your proclamation has no merit what-so-ever. Perhaps you would enlighten us with your definiton of what is time. Go ahead explain time. Not how we use the concept but what is it.

Time is what clocks measure.

Your effort is frutless. My understanding of frames is not at issue.

On the contrary: it's the only major issue. We've finally got to the bottom of this. We're at the point where all your major misconceptions stem from.

Of course, you're too gutless to face your failings head on.

I will wait until you provide a definition of "reference frame" before I respond to any further questions from you which require that concept.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

They don't run slow by equal amounts. In either frame, one clock runs slow and the other runs at normal speed. Hence, the difference in accumulated times.

Basic stuff.

Basic bullshit you mean. Let me try once more, since you refuse to complete the functions of Relativity, I'll do it for you.

"A" is considered at rest, "B" is in motion and the TD formula predicts that due to their relative motion clock B should lose 10 minutes during the test.

We bring the clocks back and according to you "WOW" B is 10 minutes slower. We just proved Relativity. Horseshit.

Now show me B's view of A, since during this test B according to Relativity has equal right to consider himself at rest and predicts A will be 10 minutes slower (since VB must equal VA the mathematics stipulate equal Relavistic affect on clocks.)

If B actually shows any differance with A then Relativity has been violated, not proven. My god man it is so obvious you do not understand the simplest thing about Relativity. It is amazing to think you are considering yourself an expert, a teacher of physics.

See Baker's 2nd paragraph. He says that clocks in constant relativity motion "will never be together again...to check which one has less elapsed time on it."

Extrapolate. To bring them back together requires acceleration. You even agree with that:

Absolutely. But that has nothing to do with the issue. Any affect (if any) seen between clcoks will be as a consequence of non-inertial conditions between the clocks and NOT due to relative velocity.

Of course, you go on to say this is:

I am not clear on whether you're discussing your clocks proposal here, or the H&K experiment, or something else.

Regarding taking no data during non-inertial period refers to all clock tests I have ever proposed. But it all refers to the theory of Relativity.

Except the 4th paragraph, of course. Liar.

Fuck you with the calling me a liar. Asshole. I noted that I am seeking clarification on one issue.

You've admitted them.

I repeat:

I can only assume that whatever you are hiding does not support your position. Therefore, as always, you pretend it doesn't exist.

You're a fraud and liar, MacM.

If you think for one second your slanderous conduct gains you any credance in this thread, I suggest you are even a bigger fool than you seem to be openly exposing yourself as.

I REPEAT. If you have no viable answer then simply say so and stop trying to divert the issue to me or to some other topic. The topic is the affect by Relativity on clocks due to relative velocity alone - NOTHINGELSE.

 

[James R]

Some simple questions to get you thinking about reference frames, MacM:

1. Can two different objects exist in the same reference frame?
2. Can two different observers who are in different places exist in the same reference frame?
3. Can 2 events which happen at different times but at the same location exist in the same reference frame?
4. Can 2 events which happen at different places and at different times exist in the same reference frame?
5. If two observers are stationary relative to each other, but in different locations, do they share the same reference frame?

 

[James R]

MacM:

You are now backpeddling away from the classic twin paradox and again proposing tests which stop the clocks while they are still in constant velocity motion. You need to make up your mind as to which scenario you want to discuss, then discuss just that scenario. Stop flip-flopping back and forth. It is confusing.

Looking at your latest constant velocity scenario, you say:

A is considered at rest, B is in motion and the TD formula prdicts that due to their relative moiton clock B should lose 10 minutes during the test.

We bring the clocks back and according to you "WOW" B is 10 minutes slower.

I am assuming you stopped the clocks before bringing them back together, this time. Correct me if I am wrong and you want to flip-flop again.

Now show me B's view of A, since during this test B according to Relativity has equal right to consider himself at rest and predicts A will be 10 minutes slower (since VB must equal VA the mathematics stipulate equal Relavistic affect on clocks.)

Correct, in the constant velocity situation.

If B actually shows any differance with A then Relativity has been violated, not proven.

Correct, in the constant velocity scenario.

Well, it seems we've dealt adequately with that scenario. I'm glad we've cleared up one problem.

Let's move on, shall we?

My god man it is so obvious you do not understand the simplest thing about Relativity. It is amazing to think you are considering yourself an expert, a teacher of physics.

I not only consider myself a teacher of physics. I am employed to teach physics. It is also obvious to anybody who posts on sciforums that teaching physics is one of the things I do. As for being an expert, I would wager I know more about relativity than 99.9% of the general population. If that doesn't make me an expert, then you have a strange definition of that word.

Fuck you with the calling me a liar. Asshole. I noted that I am seeking clarification on one issue.

Post the 4th paragraph. You don't need to wait for the response first.

Failing to post it is dishonest and deceptive.

And claiming you have posted the whole thing when you haven't makes you a liar.

If you think for one second your slanderous conduct gains you any credance in this thread, I suggest you are even a bigger fool than you seem to be openly exposing yourself as.

I am not withholding information which goes against my view. You are, as far as I can tell.

Which of us is dishonest, then?

 

[MacM]

MacM:

Wrong. This whole thread is concerned with the relative rates at which clocks tick in different reference frames. If A ticks off 20 minutes while B ticks off 10 minutes, then we have time dilation, pure and simple.

OH. I see you finally realize you were in a losing battle. Now you want to claim after all these posts that we have only been talking about A's view of B and that that proves Relativity.

Nice try but not even close. The issue has been repeated many times that the concern is the lack of reprocity in your claim of time dilation being proven physical reality by direct comparison of accumulated times on physical clocks.

The issue is the requirement that for time dilation to be physically real requires clocks to have multiple tick rates and multiple different accumulated times to satisfy each and every observers view.

TALK ABOUT BAIT AND SWITCH.

All your one sided view that you call time dilation proves is that there is a perception differance, not a time differance. On actual careful consideration it becomes clear that what you call time dilation is restricted to perception and not a physical change of time.

Time is what clocks measure.

AD HOC FIAT declaration without any substance. ALL clocks are processes. A spring unwinding, a weight falling by gravity, a battery driving a mechanisim or an atom vibrating. All such processes are subject to change by outside enfluences having nothing to do with time but with states of energy change.

NO CLOCK MEASURES AN ENITY CALLED TIME.

contrary: it's the only major issue. We've finally got to the bottom of this. We're at the point where all your major misconceptions stem from.

I have no misconceptions and your saying so doesn't make it so. You are the one that seems stumped by the reciprocity issue and multiple accumulated times by physical clocks that your view produces.

Of course, you're too gutless to face your failings head on.

You haven't shown any failings on my part. Failings on your part are starting to show rather clearly I think. That is why you are now trying to dodge the bullet by claiming we have only been discussing A's view of B and not the reciprocity issue. Because you know you have no answer.

You surely should realize that failing to answer this question leaves you losing this debate if you acknowledge it or not. Others will know. Must really be embarassing for you but you will get over it in time and you'll be better off for the lesson learned.

I will wait until you provide a definition of "reference frame" before I respond to any further questions from you which require that concept.

Wait on my friend. Your failure to address my issue leaves you the loser. I won't bite on your effort to side track this box you have created for yourself.

 

[James R]

On a side issue, please don't post images of text as attachments. They take unnecessary bandwidth to download, and hog space on the sciforums server. If you're posting emails or other text here, cut and paste the text into a post.

 

[Paul T]

MacM,

As I said, I am now going to give you some explanation. This is certainly not new, it had been said before...but this time let me elaborate a little so hopefully you will have a better grip on the issue.

A on earth. B moving at velocity 0.6c away from earth. At t=0, A and B coincide. Both A and B has clock that ticks every 1 second and every time the clock tick a light signal is sent out. What the interval of light signal received by A and B?

Remember doppler effect formulae t' = t*sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]? Here, t=1 second and v=0.6c and therefore t'=2 seconds. Both A and B use the same formulae. Agree?

Now, let's see the process step by step. Assume time dilation formulae: t'=gt (g=1.25) as correct (if it is not correct, we will know from the result).

Check the interval of signal received by A (by computing time required for second signal to reach A):

B send signal at t=1 second, but according to A this is 1.25 second and B should have already moved 1.25 second*0.6c=0.75 c second away. Time for light to travel this distance is 0.75 second, so total time is 1.25+0.75=2 second. Same as result obtained using doppler effect formulae, right?

Check the interval of signal received by B (by computing time required for second signal to reach B):

A send signal at t=1 second while B is at 0.6c second away. Time required for this signal to reach B is [0.6c second/(c-0.6c)]=1.5 second. Total time is 1+1.5=2.5 second. All time here is according to A. How long is this 2.5 second according to B? It's 2.5*0.8=2 second. Again, same as the result obtained using doppler effect formulae.

Do you find that time dilation had been mis-applied here? Do you think time dilation formulae should not be used at all? If yes, please provide the correct computation showing that 2 second interval with your own way.

Just reminding you to do some simple math. Having problem? I am sure you can see the mistake...since you said there is a reciprocity problem in relativity. My above calculation shows no such problem and time dilation doesn't go away. So, where is your prove that SR failed because of reciprocity problem?

 

[MacM]

On a side issue, please don't post images of text as attachments. They take unnecessary bandwidth to download, and hog space on the sciforums server. If you're posting emails or other text here, cut and paste the text into a post.

I would like to ablige but I still have a cut and paste problem. I get nothing or I get garbage and not the text I cut and paste. Any ideas on why that is would be appreciated. I have reloaded Win98SE but to no avail.

If I cut and paste a post from SciF into my e-mail I get a very long URL link and not the text. When I click on it I get something to do with SCIF's web site having to do with structure of the site.

 

[James R]

MacM:

OH. I see you finally realize you were in a losing battle. Now you want to claim after all these posts that we have only been tallking about A's view of B and that that proves Relativity.

I haven't attempted to prove relativity in this thread.

The issue has been repeated many times that the concern is the lack of reprocity in your claim of time dilation being proven physical reality by direct comparison of accumulated times on physical clocks.

It is very easy to demonstrate that time dilation occurs for relative velocity motion. If you like, I can give you a thought experiment which will do just that, and involves no acceleration of the clocks during the relevant part of the test.

Your "reciprocity" is a chimera - a smokescreen to hide the real issue, which is whether or not time dilation exists.

The issue is the requirement that for time dilation to be physically real requires clocks to have multiple tick rates and multiple different accumulated times to satisfy each and every observers view.

As usual, you omit the stipulation that, according to relativity, no clock can have two accumulated times in a single reference frame.

Time is what clocks measure.

AD HOC FIAT declaration with out any substance.

You asked for my definition of time. A definition is nothing but an "AD HOC FIAT declaration". What do you expect?

I define time to be the thing clocks measure.

For interest, not that it matters, what is your definition? I don't think you have one.

ALL clocks are processes. A spring undwinding, a weight falling by gravity. A battery driving a mechanisim or an atom vibrating. All such jprocess are subject to change by outside enfluences having nothing to do with time but states of energy change.

All clocks use processes to measure time. A good clock is, among other things, one whose processes are not affected by influences other than time.

This is all a bit complex for you, I know.

I will wait until you provide a definition of "reference frame" before I respond to any further questions from you which require that concept.

 

[MacM]

Just reminding you to do some simple math. Having problem? I am sure you can see the mistake...since you said there is a reciprocity problem in relativity. My above calculation shows no such problem and time dilation doesn't go away. So, where is your prove that SR failed because of reciprocity problem?

Just reminding you that your exercise does not address the issue. Using light signals to communicate and doppler shifts, etc, are merlely looking at the perception changes due to simultaneity delay and do not address the physical clock readings upon comparison of tick rates and their accumulated time display on physical clocks as compared to the perceptions and predictions made by Relativity.


There is and has been no arguement that moton and information delay do not affect perception. But they do not translate into physical displayed time shift upon clocks when placed back into direct comparison. Due to reciprocity any differance in clock readings (excluding any non-inertial affects) violates Relativity. It does not prove relativity.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

I haven't attempted to prove relativity in this thread.

Good. Perhaps you can learn after all.

It is very easy to demonstrate that time dilation occurs for relative velocity motion. If you like, I can give you a thought experiment which will do just that, and involves no acceleration of the clocks during the relevant part of the test.

Talk is cheap. Do it. I would wager I can point out a major flaw in your claim or that your test does not result in direct clock comparisons which show a differance in accumulated times..

Your "reciprocity" is a chimera - a smokescreen to hide the real issue, which is whether or not time dilation exists.

Not at all. Just that any scheme you propose, reciprocity MUST be maintained or it violates Relativity itself.

As usual, you omit the stipulation that, according to relativity, no clock can have two accumulated times in a single reference frame.

Funny how you try to turn around my statement to be used as though I somehow disagree. I do believe I have made this point repeatedly.

You asked for my definition of time. A definition is nothing but an "AD HOC FIAT declaration". What do you expect?

I define time to be the thing clocks measure.

That is very enlightening. HeHeHe.

For interest, not that it matters, what is your definition? I don't think you have one.

And here I thought you would have been through my work in great detail or have read the many times I have made the statement.

"Time is not an enity such as a 4th dimension, it is a property of an energetic space. The illusion of time flow is due to the observation of change or motion induced by energy. Without change there is no time."

All clocks use processes to measure time. A good clock is, among other things, one whose processes are not affected by influences other than time.

Please describe such a clock.

This is all a bit complex for you, I know.

What a joke.

I will wait until you provide a definition of "reference frame" before I respond to any further questions from you which require that concept.

Like I said you can choose to not address the issue here under this red herring but it won't work. You either provide a viable resolution or you lose.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

You are now backpeddling away from the classic twin paradox and again proposing tests which stop the clocks while they are still in constant velocity motion. You need to make up your mind as to which scenario you want to discuss, then discuss just that scenario. Stop flip-flopping back and forth. It is confusing.

I wasn't the one that brought in the twin case in the first place. When I referred to it I have always qualified my claim that "Any age differance was not due to constant velocity but perhaps some change due to the non-inertial portions of the trip.

Just how is that confusing and how would you suggest that I not respond when it is shoved into this thread by others. If one doesn't respond it stands as being an unchallenged truth.

Looking at your latest constant velocity scenario, you say:

I am assuming you stopped the clocks before bringing them back together, this time. Correct me if I am wrong and you want to flip-flop again.

No flip-flops on my part. The entire discussion has been directed at constant relative velocity affects on clocks. Any other issues which have been brought in have been responded to and qualified with respect to the constant velocity issue.

Correct, in the constant velocity situation.

Good. That is what I have said repeatedly without any waiver.

Correct, in the constant velocity scenario.

Good. Since that has been my position the entire time.

Well, it seems we've dealt adequately with that scenario. I'm glad we've cleared up one problem.

Let's move on, shall we?

Certainly. But lets do so by noting that you have FINALLY come around to agreeing with me and not that you have somehow cleared up something about my view. My view hasn't changed. Yours has.

I not only consider myself a teacher of physics. I am employed to teach physics. It is also obvious to anybody who posts on sciforums that teaching physics is one of the things I do. As for being an expert, I would wager I know more about relativity than 99.9% of the general population. If that doesn't make me an expert, then you have a strange definition of that word.

Look James R., I have no doubt you are intelligent and well qualified.

However, your tendancy to be obstinate and to make deragatory remarks about others in your effort to discredit their view is not appropriate and I have simply been responding in kind.

Post the 4th paragraph. You don't need to wait for the response first.

Failing to post it is dishonest and deceptive.

In what way? I want to be clear on what is meant. It is not an effort to edit his response. If that were my intention I certainly would not have made mention of it. Look there is nothing to be gained by advancing an incorrect concept. If anybody properly addresses my issue and I see I have been wrong I admit it. But I do not roll over for calls to authority or FIAT declarations as fact.

And claiming you have posted the whole thing when you haven't makes you a liar.

You have just lied. I did not make a claim that I had posted "the whole thing". I infact NOTED: That I was reserving a 4th paragraph for clarification. Big differance.

I am not withholding information which goes against my view. You are, as far as I can tell.

Which of us is dishonest, then?

You can believe whatever you choose but that doesn't make it so. No more than being well educated (indoctrinated) makes you correct.

 

[MacM]

Some simple questions to get you thinking about reference frames, MacM:

Now that you have had the courtesy of conceeding at least two of my points, I will respond to your request.

1. Can two different objects exist in the same reference frame?

Yes

2. Can two different observers who are in different places exist in the same reference frame?

Yes

3. Can 2 events which happen at different times but at the same location exist in the same reference frame?

Thinking. My issue with "Can" requires I consider all preceeding non-inertial possibilites and affects before the current situation.

4. Can 2 events which happen at different places and at different times exist in the same reference frame?

Same as#3 above.

5. If two observers are stationary relative to each other, but in different locations, do they share the same reference frame?

Yes

 

[2inquisitive]

I think (maybe?) I have a simple example that answers the question... Do
moving clocks record time differently than Earth-based ones or is it only
based on perception? Mac's 'reciprocity' issue and something that I have
understood for a long time.

Jill is on Earth with a clock and a stopwatch (two items)
Jack is on a spaceship with a clock and a stopwatch (again, two items)
Jack accelerates to .6c, then ceases acceleration (coasts)
Jack and Jill both have this really good eyesight that all involved in SR's
thought experiments seem to have.
Jack looks at Jill's clock on Earth and starts his STOPWATCH when he sees
Jill's clock read '1 o'clock.' Jill also looks at Jack's clock on the spaceship and
starts her STOPWATCH when she sees his clock read '1 o'clock.' Both stop
their stopwatches when they see the other person's clock read '3 o'clock.'
Jack then turns around and returns to Earth so they can compare stopwatches. Will not both stopwatches display MORE than two hours elapsed
time and will the stopwatches not agree to the exact same elapsed time? No
GR effects can be considered in this thought experiment, true?

 

[MacM]

I think (maybe?) I have a simple example that answers the question... Do
moving clocks record time differently than Earth-based ones or is it only
based on perception? Mac's 'reciprocity' issue and something that I have
understood for a long time.

I do like your example.

Jill is on Earth with a clock and a stopwatch (two items)
Jack is on a spaceship with a clock and a stopwatch (again, two items)
Jack accelerates to .6c, then ceases acceleration (coasts)
Jack and Jill both have this really good eyesight that all involved in SR's
thought experiments seem to have.
Jack looks at Jill's clock on Earth and starts his STOPWATCH when he sees
Jill's clock read '1 o'clock.' Jill also looks at Jack's clock on the spaceship and
starts her STOPWATCH when she sees his clock read '1 o'clock.' Both stop
their stopwatches when they see the other person's clock read '3 o'clock.'
Jack then turns around and returns to Earth so they can compare stopwatches. Will not both stopwatches display MORE than two hours elapsed
timeand will the stopwatches not agree to the exact same elapsed time?

No

GR effects can be considered in this thought experiment, true?

Yes and that is the only reason the two stop watches do not agree. Do your experiment in deep space with no GR affect and they agree with a 2.5 hours elapsed time, noting however, that you have only proven that relative velocity causes a perceptional change, not that time changed. If this were the twins case then the only change in age would be due to non-inertial motion and not the relative velocity, since that means each has slowed equally and no measureable time shift has occured.

Hence the H&K atomic clock test were a fraud to claim relative velocity had produced a measureable time shift in clocks proving Relativity.

 

[Paul T]

Just reminding you that your exercise does not address the issue. Using light signals to communicate and doppler shifts, etc, are merlely looking at the perception changes due to simultaneity delay and do not address the physical clock readings upon comparison of tick rates and their accumulated time display on physical clocks ass compared to the perceptionss and predictions made by Relativity.


There is and has been no arguement that moton and information delay do not affect perception. But they do not trranslate into physical displayed time shift upon clcoks when placed back into direct comparison. Due to reciprocity any differance in clock readings (excluding any non-inertial affects) violates Relativity. It does not prove relativity.

BULLSHIT! This is just your other way of saying that you have no capability to grasp even such a simple grade school math. Tsk..tsk..tsk, what a shame our great MacM.

If light signal doesn't count, so what else do you think could to the job? Your telephaty ability? Wah...wah..wah...What's a joke.

 

[MacM]

BULLSHIT! This is just your other way of saying that you have no capability to grasp even such a simple grade school math. Tsk..tsk..tsk, what a shame our great MacM.

If light signal doesn't count, so what else do you think could to the job? Your telephaty ability? Wah...wah..wah...What's a joke.

"telepathy"

The joke is you. You are another that makes a poor loser. Perhaps you should consider James R's lead above, be a man, and finally admit it when you are wrong or wrongfully have argued a point.

There are no permanent measureable accumulated time diffentials due to relative velocity in the physical display of clocks. Such affects are restricted to the period of moving observation.

HINT: No relative velocity time dilation physically.

HINT: The twin does not get younger, due to relative velocity, upon being reunited with his brother. Affects, if any, would be non-inertial in nature, which involve a change in energy state due to acceleration by GR, not SR.

HINT: H&K Atomic Clock Test claims actually violate Relativity, not prove it.

HINT: Since Relativity actually prohibits any time differential due to relative velocity alone, muon decay does not prove Relativity.

It proves somethingelse is at work that we have not yet explored and understand (primarily because the scientific community is to blinded by the absolute faith in Relativity and readily accept such data as proof that it is Relativity at work without actually following logically Relativity to its ultimate conclusion).

For example the increased arrival of the number of muons at earth's surface could be due to Lorentz Contraction of distance, not time dilation. However, I personally do not accept LC of space but only of physical masses and then only as with TD on a perception basis not a physical basis.

HINT: Most, if not, all relavistic affects may be shown to be illusional, observational, perceptional and temporal in nature and not permanent measurable physical changes.

HINT: If you, as you have, misinterprete the meaning of Relativity's SR perhaps we should also start to analyze GR for simular flaws in the mis-application of its mathematics.

 

[Persol]

Time is not an enity such as a 4th dimension, it is a property of an energetic space. The illusion of time flow is due to the observation of change or motion induced by energy. Without change there is no time.

Laying the bullshit on a bit thick aren't you? So time is due to motion, which is due to time, which is due to motion....

Seems JamesR's definition stands. A clock is in motion which is 'induced' by energy. JamesR's definition of time is obtained by observing said motion.

Yet you used you 'AD HOC FIAT' line anyway. I swear, you're like a little kid who just learned a new phrase.