MacM's Closure to a Length Contraction Thread

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Ken G

It is you who are incorrect. The second statement above is correct, what is incorrect is any suggestion that there is a problem here. There is none. As I said before, the error in your analysis is a failure to account for differences in synchronization of the clocks. This is often the mistake made by people who don't understand special relativity. I will explain.

Unfortunately you fail to realize that the way this gedanken has been formulated synchronization is not required. The issues is gamma functions due to relative veloicty and they occur without synchronization.

The only thing that must be done is to demonstrate that the accumulation of 18,000 ticks is done in the same 36,000 seocndsaccording to clock Am.

That is done by computing the interval between the informational Start/Stop signals. One way Gamma is verified. In absence of simultaneity (an illusion of motion) the reciprocity gamma is falisified.

[worzel]

Originally Posted by MacM

That is I contend that the correct test is to insure a common standard "t". In this case the "Am " clock is used for all data.

Then you are only considering what happens in A's frame, and indeed in that frame B and C really are dilated. Do the same from B's or C's frame and you'll find that actually it was the other two who's clocks were really dilated.

My bottom line contention is that Relativity of Simultaneity is not a bonafide time dilation affect. It is a measurement illusion affect due to relative motion and does not affect the accumulated time on clocks when subsequently compared in a common frame.

If both B and C turned around and returned to A would you agree that their clocks would have less elapsed time than A's?

Would you agree that both B's and C's clocks would agree if they performed symmetrical flight paths to return?

Would you agree that the amount by which B's and C's clocks would lag behind A's once they'd returned would be dependant on how long they travelled out and back inertially?

[MacM]

Originally Posted by worzel

Then you are only considering what happens in A's frame, and indeed in that frame B and C really are dilated. Do the same from B's or C's frame and you'll find that actually it was the other two who's clocks were really dilated.

You are almost there. What you fail to recognize is that the A/B and A/C dilated accumulated time is incompatable with the B/C C/B frame unless you include simultaneity which is an illusion of motion and not a change in gamma.

You distort your test by changing the standard to produce the appearance of consistancy but in reality there is no consistancy and it is impossible to produce data supporting that view of time dilation.

If both B and C turned around and returned to A would you agree that their clocks would have less elapsed time than A's?

Yes.

Would you agree that both B's and C's clocks would agree if they performed symmetrical flight paths to return?

Yes. But the gedanken eliminates the requirement to make such turn around and include the confusion of GR and simultaneity affects.

Would you agree that the amount by which B's and C's clocks would lag behind A's once they'd returned would be dependant on how long they travelled out and back inertially?

Yes. But again the gedanken makes it unnecessary for the round trip to be timed. The one way Gamma is demonstrated valid and the recipocal gamma claim is demonstrated impossible.

[worzel]

Originally Posted by MacM

You are almost there.

Why thank you

What you fail to recognize is that the A/B and A/C dilated accumulated time is incompatable with the B/C C/B frame unless you include simultaneity which is an illusion of motion and not a change in gamma.

For a start, there is a frame in which A is at rest, a frame in which B is at rest, and a frame in which C is at rest. I don't know what you mean by the B/C C/B frame. In each of the three frames of interest the plane (or whatever it's called) of simultaniety is different because they are moving relative to each other. Your refutation of this seems to depend on the assertion that the relativity of simultaneity is just an illusion. You haven't demonstrated how inconsistencies arise from it. Your thought experiment only has a hint of inconsistencey because you try to sum up all points of view from one - which you just can't do is SR. The reality of the situation in every day notions of distance and time are relative to the observer.

You distort your test by changing the standard to produce the appearance of consistancy but in reality there is no consistancy and it is impossible to produce data supporting that view of time dilation.

So you claim. But can you actually derive an inconsistency from SR?

But the gedanken eliminates the requirement to make such turn around and include the confusion of GR and simultaneity affects.

You don't need GR to figure out the twin paradox. And the relativity of simultaneity is right there in SR (and at the heart of the twin paradox). Your thought experiment has only demonstrated that your requirement of an absolute sense in which spatially separated and relativy moving clocks can be reckoned is inconsistent with SR, not that SR is itself inconsistent.

Yes. But again the gedanken makes it unnecessary for the round trip to be timed. The one way Gamma is demonstrated valid and the recipocal gamma claim is demonstrated impossible.

You'd better go into more detial, because I don't think anyone else can see how you've demonstrated anything of the sort.

The important thing about you agreeing with the twin paradox (where your B and C turn around) is that you agree that this effect is the same for both even though A is arbitrary, so you can't believe in any sort of absolute frame of reference afterall. And you agree that the amount by which A's and B's clocks differ on return can be lengthened simply by altering the interial parts of their flight - so you must agree that our arbitrarily (but inertially) floating A attributes their loss of time purely down to time dilation due to relative motion (in both directions). Of course, if A were to head off after B and B were to carry on inertially then B would account for A's lost time identically when A caught up with B, so the time dilation while A and B are separating must be equally real for both of them.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Worzel

Why thank you

Glad to see you have a sense of humor.

For a start, there is a frame in which A is at rest, a frame in which B is at rest, and a frame in which C is at rest. I don't know what you mean by the B/C C/B frame.

Agreed I used a very loose meaning. I should have been more precise. B/C or C/B is not a frame but C as viewed from the B frame and B as viewed from the C frame.

Your refutation of this seems to depend on the assertion that the relativity of simultaneity is just an illusion.

Not correct. It is an illusion of measurement. Meaning it has not changed the amount of time at the local level. Only physical time dilation changes the accumulated time upon direct comparison of clocks in a common frame.

What one sees in remote viewing while in motion is "Perception" not the physical reality locally. Only when clocks are reunited in a common frame and display different accumulated times can one claim time dilation as physical reality. Now certainly one can compensate the "Perception" measurement being made while in motion at a distance and determine the tick rate and accumulated time differance if they know all the travel specifics.

But "What you see" IS NOT "What you get".

You haven't demonstrated how inconsistencies arise from it. Your thought experiment only has a hint of inconsistencey because you try to sum up all points of view from one - which you just can't do is SR. The reality of the situation in every day notions of distance and time are relative to the observer.

I agree that relatvisits object to stringent physics and want to dabble, or double dip, by changing measurement standards and making claims that on close inspection cannot be supported physically.

So you claim. But can you actually derive an inconsistency from SR?

I have but only if you acknowledge that Relativity of Simultaneity does not contribute to the ultimate accumulation of time differance upon direct comparison of two clocks in a common frame. That true change in time must be recorded as a differance by the clocks and not as a function of measurment while moving. That is the Twins age can only be considered at the time of being reunited.

You don't need GR to figure out the twin paradox. And the relativity of simultaneity is right there in SR (and at the heart of the twin paradox). Your thought experiment has only demonstrated that your requirement of an absolute sense in which spatially separated and relativy moving clocks can be reckoned is inconsistent with SR, not that SR is itself inconsistent.

Again. SR is made consistant if you allow alteration of your measurement standard by introducing simultaneity. But that goes beyond the gamma function and the claim mathematically that t' = t / (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2.

Just where do you see simultaneity in the above time dilation formula? You don't. The claim in SR is that time is based on relative velocity period. It says nothing here about allowing clocks to run for different periods based on perception while in motion at some distance.

You'd better go into more detial, because I don't think anyone else can see how you've demonstrated anything of the sort.

The gedanken ONLY evaluates the time dilation function above. That is the affect on clocks based on some set period of relative inertial motion. Accumulated time by a clock is directly linked to its tick rate times the period of test.

Time dilation cannot be assessed nor recorded if the test period is not precisely the same as is done using Am as a master control clock.

The important thing about you agreeing with the twin paradox (where your B and C turn around) is that you agree that this effect is the same for both even though A is arbitrary, so you can't believe in any sort of absolute frame of reference afterall.

False. B and C are the only clocks which experienced F = ma. That is they are the clocks which have undergone some form of absolute change. A has made none and ALL emperical data will show that B and C have dilated equally inspite of having had relative velocity. Not vice-versa. That is an absolute function not a relative function which advocates but does not demonstrate reciprocity.

And you agree that the amount by which A's and B's clocks differ on return can be lengthened simply by altering the interial parts of their flight - so you must agree that our arbitrarily (but inertially) floating A attributes their loss of time purely down to time dilation due to relative motion (in both directions).

No I don't. And you cannot post any data which demonstrates that reciprocity exists.

Of course, if A were to head off after B and B were to carry on inertially then B would account for A's lost time identically when A caught up with B, so the time dilation while A and B are separating must be equally real for both of them.

False. You prove my point. Once A accelerates and joins B then they are now traveling at the same absolute velocity (what ever that might be).

[worzel]

Originally Posted by MacM

Agreed I used a very loose meaning. I should have been more precise. B/C or C/B is not a frame but C as viewed from the B frame and B as viewed from the C frame.

Well both of those correspond to B's rest frame and C's rest frame respectively, so that's clear now. So when you said "What you fail to recognize is that the A/B and A/C dilated accumulated time is incompatable with the B/C C/B frame unless you include simultaneity which is an illusion of motion and not a change in gamma." you were right in that you must include the relativity of simultaneity to make these frames compatable with A's, but SR prescribes that anyway, so that doesn't show that SR is inconsistent.

Originally Posted by MacM

Not correct. It is an illusion of measurement. Meaning it has not changed the amount of time at the local level. Only physical time dilation changes the accumulated time upon direct comparison of clocks in a common frame.

What one sees in remote viewing while in motion is "Perception" not the physical reality locally. Only when clocks are reunited in a common frame and display different accumulated times can one claim time dilation as physical reality. Now certainly one can compensate the "Perception" measurement being made while in motion at a distance and determine the tick rate and accumulated time differance if they know all the travel specifics.

Well I agree that a second in one's rest frame is a second, period. If you want to define time dilation such that it is only real when it is apparent by clock comparisons in a common frame then fine, that still doesn't show any inconsistency in SR, because SR just tells you how to transform events from one frame to another such that they remain consistent. The philosophy is left for mathematical ignoramuses like myself to argue over on an Internet BB

Originally Posted by MacM

I agree that relatvisits object to stringent physics and want to dabble, or double dip, by changing measurement standards and making claims that on close inspection cannot be supported physically.

If one must transform events such that intervals of time and space are no longer absolute according to the theory then the only possible objections are that it doesn't predict accurately or that it is inconsistent. Both of those objectiosn are incorrect for SR. Vague accusations of double standards because you just don't like the idea of time and space no longer being absolute is no more an objection than mine to Newton's theory because I just "know" that cannon balls fall faster than feathers.

Originally Posted by MacM

I have but only if you acknowledge that Relativity of Simultaneity does not contribute to the ultimate accumulation of time differance upon direct comparison of two clocks in a common frame. That true change in time must be recorded as a differance by the clocks and not as a function of measurment while moving. That is the Twins age can only be considered at the time of being reunited.

But it can be understood in terms of the relativity of simultaneity using SR. In the part I've bolded you are effectively saying that you have shown an inconsistency, but only if we accept your assertion that the relativity of simultaneity doesn't play a part in the differing times elapsed for the reunited twins. That is circular as we claim that it does play a crucial part.

Originally Posted by MacM

Again. SR is made consistant if you allow alteration of your measurement standard by introducing simultaneity. But that goes beyond the gamma function and the claim mathematically that t' = t / (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2.

Just where do you see simultaneity in the above time dilation formula? You don't. The claim in SR is that time is based on relative velocity period. It says nothing here about allowing clocks to run for different periods based on perception while in motion at some distance.

It is implicit in the Lorentz transformation. In the twins paradox the sudden Lorentz tranformation causes clocks in the direction of the change to literally leap forward by a factor proportional to their distance from the turning twin. This is one and the same as saying the what is now over their to the twin changes as he turns - or in other words, what are simultaneous events is relative and is changed by a Galilean boost (i.e. a sudden change of reference frame via a Lorentz transformation).

Originally Posted by MacM

The gedanken ONLY evaluates the time dilation function above. That is the affect on clocks based on some set period of relative inertial motion. Accumulated time by a clock is directly linked to its tick rate times the period of test.

Time dilation cannot be assessed nor recorded if the test period is not precisely the same as is done using Am as a master control clock.

Your claim is that SR is inconsistent. Where does SR say that time dilation can only be reckoned as you prescribe? If it doesn't then your assertions don't support your claim of inconsistency.

Originally Posted by MacM

False. B and C are the only clocks which experienced F = ma. That is they are the clocks which have undergone some form of absolute change. A has made none and ALL emperical data will show that B and C have dilated equally inspite of having had relative velocity. Not vice-versa. That is an absolute function not a relative function which advocates but does not demonstrate reciprocity.

No, you are wrong. The twin experiment can be set up so that there is no acceleration simply by having conveniently moving observers crossing each others paths and comparing clocks when right next to each other. The same result occurs with no clock experiencing any acceleration, according to SR anyway, so your objection doesn't support your claim that SR is inconsistent.

Originally Posted by MacM

No I don't. And you cannot post any data which demonstrates that reciprocity exists.

But you did:

Would you agree that the amount by which B's and C's clocks would lag behind A's once they'd returned would be dependant on how long they travelled out and back inertially?

Yes. But again the gedanken makes it unnecessary for the round trip to be timed.

The fact that you find it unnecessary for your gedanken doesn't change the fact that you agreed with it. But if you don't, no matter, SR does. So unless you can show that SR also doesn't then this doesn't constitute a contradiction within SR either.

Originally Posted by MacM

False. You prove my point. Once A accelerates and joins B then they are now traveling at the same absolute velocity (what ever that might be).

You missed the point, which is forgivable because I'm not very good at making them. As I said above, the whole thing can be done with no acceleration anyway. The symmetry of the twin paradox is broken by the change of reference frame of one twin versus the other. This can be done with exactly the same effect with conveniently intersecting worldlines of accurate clocks moving inertially throughout.

Imagine your two twins floating off away form each other. One turns around and rejoins the other (or passes a conveniently moving clock and quickly sets it time). That one has aged less. The older, inertial one saw the younger one's clock ticking slower the whole time he was heading away and coming back (after discounting signal propagation times) exactly in accordance with SR's time dilation due to relative motion. And it doesn't matter which one turns around, the time dilation of both the outward and inward trip account for the difference.

From the point of view of the one that turned around, the other's clock also runs slow throughout: there's the recipricacy you keep denying. But when he turns around the others clock suddenly leaps forward (ignoring the time taken to turn arond, and after discounting signal propagation times): there's the relativity of simultaneity you keep denying. And it leaps just the right amount for the two periods of dilation pluss the leap due to change of FoR to account for the same difference that the inertial twin gets from just time dilation alone. And that's all there in the Lorentz transformation alone.

That's how it works in SR. It is consistent, and that leaping of distant clocks is the relativity of simultaneity in action. And it only works if you take the time dilation they both "see" into account (after propagation etc.) and the change in what is now over there for the turning one into account. Or in short, it works consistently for any observer precisely because of time dilation due to relative motion and the relativity of simultaneity.

Now, MacM, where is the inconsistency?

[Tensor]

Originally Posted by MacM

Again. SR is made consistent if you allow alteration of your
measurement standard by introducing simultaneity. But that goes beyond
the gamma function and the claim mathematically that t' = t / (1 -
v^2/c^2)^1/2.

Just where do you see simultaneity in the above time dilation formula?
You don't. The claim in SR is that time is based on relative velocity
period. It says nothing here about allowing clocks to run for
different periods based on perception while in motion at some
distance.

Mac, have you read the1905 paper? Look at section 1. The derivation of gamma, in section
3, requires the definition of simultaneity Einstein uses in section 1. So, simultaneity is in the equation, through the definitions used to derive gamma. You can't simply toss or ignore the definition of simultaneity found in the paper. What you have shown, is that if you ignore the definition of simultaneity found in SR, SR doesn't work. Why would that be a suprise?

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Worzel

Well both of those correspond to B's rest frame and C's rest frame respectively, so that's clear now. So when you said "What you fail to recognize is that the A/B and A/C dilated accumulated time is incompatable with the B/C C/B frame unless you include simultaneity which is an illusion of motion and not a change in gamma." you were right in that you must include the relativity of simultaneity to make these frames compatable with A's, but SR prescribes that anyway, so that doesn't show that SR is inconsistent.

I'm glad we can agree on at least something. It is inconsistant with the arguement that time (gamma) is a function of relative velocity. That arguement requires additional mathematical manipulation which is beyond the gamma function and has nothing to do with time dilation. You must ignore the comparative tick rates and allow clocks to run for extended periods to make the numbers come out right.

What I am showing is that the concept of relative velocity is inconsistant with physical reality as supported by acceptable logic and emperical data.

Emperical data does not support the reciprocity arguement.

Well I agree that a second in one's rest frame is a second, period. If you want to define time dilation such that it is only real when it is apparent by clock comparisons in a common frame then fine, that still doesn't show any inconsistency in SR, because SR just tells you how to transform events from one frame to another such that they remain consistent. The philosophy is left for mathematical ignoramuses like myself to argue over on an Internet BB

It is no longer philosophy when emperical data does not support the reciprocity arguement. What emperical data is trying to tell you is that such transformation manipulation is incorrect physically even if mathematically it achieves an internal consistancy.

If one must transform events such that intervals of time and space are no longer absolute according to the theory then the only possible objections are that it doesn't predict accurately or that it is inconsistent. Both of those objectiosn are incorrect for SR.

We disagree. Emperical data does not support the transformation manipulation arguement for a relative velocity view. Emperical data is only consistant with some absolute view.

Vague accusations of double standards because you just don't like the idea of time and space no longer being absolute is no more an objection than mine to Newton's theory because I just "know" that cannon balls fall faster than feathers.

Failure of emperical data to support reciprocity after 100+ years of testing is not a vauge accusation and the issues is not a matter of "I know cannon balls, etc". It is a matter of I have never seen and challenge you to present any data which supports reciprocity of time dilation.

But it can be understood in terms of the relativity of simultaneity using SR. In the part I've bolded you are effectively saying that you have shown an inconsistency, but only if we accept your assertion that the relativity of simultaneity doesn't play a part in the differing times elapsed for the reunited twins. That is circular as we claim that it does play a crucial part.

Think. Relativity of simultaneity only applies to moving frames. It has no lasting recorded affect on any frame. It is not relevant to the gamma vs physical change in accumulated time due to relative velocity.

It is implicit in the Lorentz transformation. In the twins paradox the sudden Lorentz tranformation causes clocks in the direction of the change to literally leap forward by a factor proportional to their distance from the turning twin. This is one and the same as saying the what is now over their to the twin changes as he turns - or in other words, what are simultaneous events is relative and is changed by a Galilean boost (i.e. a sudden change of reference frame via a Lorentz transformation).

Agreed that is the affect of the transformation but that still has no bearing on the gamma function due to inertial relative velocity. GR is simply not part of this discussion.

Your claim is that SR is inconsistent. Where does SR say that time dilation can only be reckoned as you prescribe? If it doesn't then your assertions don't support your claim of inconsistency.

Look it up. Time dilation due to inertial relative velocity is mathematically t' = t / (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2, nothing more. All the rest has to due with the consequence of GR turn arounds, etc. This thread and issue is ONLY about the failure of relative veloicty in accordance with the formula as it stands.

No, you are wrong. The twin experiment can be set up so that there is no acceleration simply by having conveniently moving observers crossing each others paths and comparing clocks when right next to each other. The same result occurs with no clock experiencing any acceleration, according to SR anyway, so your objection doesn't support your claim that SR is inconsistent.

Sorry but that is mathematically incomplete. The crossing of paths withouth acceleration is good for a Start or Stop but not both.

The fact that you find it unnecessary for your gedanken doesn't change the fact that you agreed with it. But if you don't, no matter, SR does. So unless you can show that SR also doesn't then this doesn't constitute a contradiction within SR either.

Sorry but SR predicts reciprocity of time dilation. Please post at least ONE case of emperical data demonstrating that affect.

You missed the point, which is forgivable because I'm not very good at making them. As I said above, the whole thing can be done with no acceleration anyway. The symmetry of the twin paradox is broken by the change of reference frame of one twin versus the other. This can be done with exactly the same effect with conveniently intersecting worldlines of accurate clocks moving inertially throughout.

As stated above I disagree and I await your demonstration of how you can do that.

Imagine your two twins floating off away form each other. One turns around and rejoins the other (or passes a conveniently moving clock and quickly sets it time). That one has aged less. The older, inertial one saw the younger one's clock ticking slower the whole time he was heading away and coming back (after discounting signal propagation times) exactly in accordance with SR's time dilation due to relative motion. And it doesn't matter which one turns around, the time dilation of both the outward and inward trip account for the difference.

I have no disagreement with this other than you conveniently made a GR turn around. And yes their ends up being a deficeit of time in the frame which accelerated away in the first instance.

That is the point the frame (Twin) which remained at rest does not support the reciprocity arguement for relative velocity of SR. Are you in disagreement with SR that both Twins have a common relative velocity throughout the test?

If not then where is the time dilation predicted by the Twin that accelerated away and returned, for his stay at home brother.? SR relative velocity says he should be younger than him.

Where is the data which shows that the earth bound clocks in the H&K atomic clock test accumulated less time than the airborne clocks. That according to SR is the right of the pilots that ran the test to expect.

From the point of view of the one that turned around, the other's clock also runs slow throughout: there's the recipricacy you keep denying.

I have not denied anything. I clearly stated that illusions of measurment due to motion which do not result in recorded time change by accumulated time on the clocks is not physical time dilation but merely a perception matter and are not at issue here.

But when he turns around the others clock suddenly leaps forward (ignoring the time taken to turn arond, and after discounting signal propagation times): there's the relativity of simultaneity you keep denying.

Please keep it factual. I have not denied simultaneity. I have said and still say that simultaneity is not relatied to the gamma function.

And it leaps just the right amount for the two periods of dilation pluss the leap due to change of FoR to account for the same difference that the inertial twin gets from just time dilation alone. And that's all there in the Lorentz transformation alone.

And what you get and have is a one way gamma function without reciprocity. SR says both frames are equal and each can be considered as at rest and the other has all motion; hence experiences the relavistic affects. It just is not so.

That's how it works in SR. It is consistent, and that leaping of distant clocks is the relativity of simultaneity in action. And it only works if you take the time dilation they both "see" into account (after propagation etc.) and the change in what is now over there for the turning one into account. Or in short, it works consistently for any observer precisely because of time dilation due to relative motion and the relativity of simultaneity.

False. It consistantly only results in a ONE way gamma function in defiance of the reciprocity which is both inherent and advocated by the theory.

Now, MacM, where is the inconsistency?

Stated clearly above.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Tensor

Mac, have you read the1905 paper? Look at section 1. The derivation of gamma, in section
3, requires the definition of simultaneity Einstein uses in section 1. So, simultaneity is in the equation, through the definitions used to derive gamma. You can't simply toss or ignore the definition of simultaneity found in the paper. What you have shown, is that if you ignore the definition of simultaneity found in SR, SR doesn't work. Why would that be a suprise?

Unfortunately the simultaneity issue only affects clocks while in motion.

This thread and the issue of physical time dilation involves only the differential time between clocks which started off synchronized but then have undergone relative motion and are no longer synchronized.

The issue is that only one will show time dilation which violates the claim of reciprocity in the relative velocity view advocated by SR.

[Nereid]

Continuing with the 'there are only 3 clocks' line of questioning ...

Originally Posted by MacM

[snip]

What I am showing is that the concept of relative velocity is inconsistant with physical reality as supported by acceptable logic and emperical data.

Emperical data does not support the reciprocity arguement.

I'm lost - isn't this a Gedankenexperiment? And MacM declares there are ~9 clocks, when there are, in fact, only three?

Where is the "empirical" basis for this?

Further, without the equivalent of a 'videolink' between the three clocks, what basis can any claims of "physical reality" have?

It is no longer philosophy when emperical data does not support the reciprocity arguement. What emperical data is trying to tell you is that such transformation manipulation is incorrect physically even if mathematically it achieves an internal consistancy.

What "emperical data"?

We disagree. Emperical data does not support the transformation manipulation arguement for a relative velocity view. Emperical data is only consistant with some absolute view.

That may be so.

However, as the MacM presentation is a Gendankenexperiment, there is no "empirical data".

If we were to introduce empirical data, it would be of the form of the (our frame) observed half-life of muons (for example), as a function of their (observed) speed.

But, unless I have misunderstood, MacM does not wish to consider actual empirical data (=experimental results), for now.

Failure of emperical data to support reciprocity after 100+ years of testing is not a vauge accusation and the issues is not a matter of "I know cannon balls, etc". It is a matter of I have never seen and challenge you to present any data which supports reciprocity of time dilation.

It seems we keep coming back to this.

So, once more for my own view:

• experiments to test the MacM assertions cannot be conducted, with today's technology
• it may be possible to do such tests, but it is unlikely they will be able to be done within the lifetime of any BAUT member reading this post today
• these aspects of SR, while perhaps interesting, are very minor, in overall scheme of things
• SR has, in fact, been tested in the lab, in thousands (possibly millions) of experiments, and no inconsistency has been detected, to date
• this most certainly does not mean that, at some time in the future, an experiment will be done, with the results being clearly inconsistent with SR
• if any ATMer would like to propose such a test, then let's see it!

[worzel]

MacM:

You mention emperical data a lot but you have shown no data whatsoever to support your claim, and despite many requests you have not shown where one out of the hundreds of experiments that support SR are wrong in their interpretation of the data.

You claim that SR is inconsistent but you have shown no such inconsistency. You appeal to "acceptable logic", what's that? Do you understand what "internally consistent" means?

You keep saying "think", "look it up", etc. when clearly your knowledge of SR is lacking. Do you really think that none of us have ever thought about it before? Do you really think that most of us didn't start out thinking "this just can't be right".

You appeal to gamm but brush off the Lorentz transformation as a GR turn around. You are just plain wrong, MacM, gamma comes from the Lorentz transformation which is itself the heart and soul of SR. The Lorentz transformation prescribes time dilation, length contraction, and relativity of simultaneity, and it is purely SR.

The twins paradox can be done with no acceleration. Just take two ships that pass at t0, and a third that passes one at t1 and the other at t2.

But anyhow, GR is not required for acceleration anyway. A smooth turnaround can be approximated with many small Lorentz transformations. In the limit as the number of transformations approaches infinity and the size of the transformations approaches zero we end up with acceleration and equations that work out to be the equations for a pseudo gravity field due to the acceleration. The term "pseudo gravity field" may fool you into thinking this is GR, but believe it or not this is still pure SR: it is just calculus applied to SR over flat spacetime.

Originally Posted by MacM

That is the point the frame (Twin) which remained at rest does not support the reciprocity arguement for relative velocity of SR. Are you in disagreement with SR that both Twins have a common relative velocity throughout the test?

If not then where is the time dilation predicted by the Twin that accelerated away and returned, for his stay at home brother.? SR relative velocity says he should be younger than him.

You failed your comprehension test. I already explained that while the twins are moving inertially they both "see" the other's clock running slow, and that the asymmetry is due entirely to the Lorentz transformation which entails a leap forward of distant clocks.

When you make an argument and I reply with an explanation and you make the same bogus argument again after clearly not reading, or chosing to ignore, the explanation given I do wonder why anyone would bother arguing with you. Are you capable of rational discourse? Or is this conversation a complete waste of time?