Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

does this argument make sense to you?

No your arguments do not make sense at all since they violate the Lorentz transformation. Please answer the following simple questions:

1. When is a clock stationary?

2. In the time dilation formula for a clock (delta)tv=(gamma)*(delta)t: On which clock is the "undilated" time (delta)t measured?

[rcain]

does this argument make sense to you?

No your arguments do not make sense at all since they violate the Lorentz transformation. Please answer the following simple questions:

1. When is a clock stationary?

2. In the time dilation formula for a clock (delta)tv=(gamma)*(delta)t: On which clock is the "undilated" time (delta)t measured?

oh.

however, in my formulation, i specifically 'assumed' - that is to say, i neglected to mention that the Lorentz transformation is NEVER 'violated', EXCEPT when an object experiences acceleration/change of FOR: during such states the Lorentz transformation is 'in reality' 'applied' to the frame of the distant/moving object. in other words it is a refinement or extension of the basic (scalar/vector) transformation.

in answer to you questions:

1) '... relative to another' - NEVER - unless it is the same actual clock. anything else is an approximation. but we can come pretty close to it.

2) BOTH - if you wish to plan a future meeting between the two clocks and incorporate an 'arbitrary decision' about which clock (frame) catches up or slows down to meet (at rest with) the other.

ps. ie. it only becomes 'dilated' (dilation only has meaning) relative to another frame.

[johanfprins]

1) '... relative to another' - NEVER - unless it is the same actual clock.

So there is no stationary clocks at all? Galileo stated that all items moving along within a single inertial reference frame are stationary within this reference frame. So you are claiming that Galileo stated BS?

they are all moving and they anything else is an approximation.

An approximation of what?

but we can come pretty close to it.

Close to what?

2) BOTH -

So you agree that two clocks within two inertial reference frames which move relative to one another with any speed v, MUST show identical elapsed time intervals equal tol (delta)t. I agree with this.

if you wish to plan a future meeting between the two clocks and incorporate an 'arbitrary decision' about which clock (frame) catches up or slows down to meet (at rest with) the other.

One clock does not need to "catch up" with the other clock if they BOTH MUST show the same elapsed time (delta)t all the time.

ps. ie. it only becomes 'dilated' (dilation only has meaning) relative to another frame.

Correct! So each clock keeps exactly the same time-rate within the reference frame in which it is according to Galileo stationary, equal to the time rtae on another clock which is also according to Galileo stationary within its own inertial refrence frame. This is exactly what I have been saying all along.

All clocks are moving relative to one another, but each one of these clocks is stationary within its own inertial refrence frame and therefore there is not a unique stationary clock. Since the physics must be the same within each and every inertial refrence frame, this demands that all clocks must keep the SAME time within their respective inertial reference frames. The clock of one twin can thus not go slower or faster within the respective inertial reference frames of the clocks; withih which the twins are also stationary relative to their respective clocks. So how can one age faster than the other?

[tomclarke]

As you well know, the issue here is what happens when reference frames chnage/

Nope!!! This is what you want to believe the issue is. It is not. The issue is far simpler: It iss how to interpret the fiormula for time dilation: (delta)tv=(gamma)*(delta)t.

This formula states that when clock measures a time-interval (delta)t within the FOR within it is stationary this time interval is dilated WHEN IT IS TRANSFORMED INTO ANY OTHER INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME THAT MOVES WITH ANY OTHER SPEED v RELATIVE TO THIS CLOCK'S REFERENCE FRAME. THIS CANNOT MEAN THAT THE CLOCK ITSELF IS KEEPING DILATED TIME WITHIN ITS OWN INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME. ALL CLOCKS MUST KEEP EXACTLY THE SAME TIME WITHIN THEIR OWN INERTIAL REFRENCE FRAMES WITHIN WHICH EACH ONE IS STATIONARY RESPECTIVELY.

einstein along with nearly all others would say that time dilation becomes a real effect noticeable by comparing clocks.

Einstein very clearly stated that the slower rate is with repect to the refrence frame within which the clock is NOT stationary. Go and read the book he wrote in 1916.

Johan, I'm not going to argue about interpretation of words. I will argue about physically observable phenomena. And that means Twins case where one twin changes frames, the other does not, and they meet up.

In this (measurable) case relative time dilation is real and as given by SR.

Where there is no change of frame, ie one clock goes aay from the other forever with speed v, since clocks cannot be directly compared, I am not interested in the "relative rates". In fact don't think these are well defined, because the ratio you get is frame-dependent.

[tomclarke]

The clock of one twin can thus not go slower or faster within the respective inertial reference frames of the clocks; withih which the twins are also stationary relative to their respective clocks. So how can one age faster than the other?

Ths argument is where you go wrong. It only applies if you can compare (in some frame-indepenent sense) the times in different frames. If you had an absolute time measre for all of spacetime you could do this, and also all paths between two events (see my diagram above) would be forced to have the same proper time. The analogy is electric potential where the voltage measures teh same whichever path you take.

But that does not exists in the relativistic world. Sorry.

[rcain]

1) '... relative to another' - NEVER - unless it is the same actual clock.

So there is no stationary clocks at all? Galileo stated that all items moving along within a single inertial reference frame are stationary within this reference frame. So you are claiming that Galileo stated BS?

- yes, there are NO stationary clocks at all.

- Galileo - maestro, mephisto and genius that he was, did not yet know about the nature of the velocity of light and thus too had no familiarity with Special Relativity - a priori or a posteriori.

- so NO, i am not proclaiming him a BS'er - he described what he saw and he interpreted it well, but not completely.

they are all moving and they anything else is an approximation.

An approximation of what?

but we can come pretty close to it.

Close to what?

an 'approximation' to some 'possible future' meeting point - a 'targeted' 4d-volume in space time which lies in the causal future of both frames.

'close to' 'at rest'/'of the same frame' - but they never actually can be whilst they are two separate objects. even a (finite/macro) 'solid material body' is just such an approximation, 'local space-time' an abstraction of that.

2) BOTH -

So you agree that two clocks within two inertial reference frames which move relative to one another with any speed v, MUST show identical elapsed time intervals equal tol (delta)t. I agree with this.

NO - that is not quite what i said (nor what i meant to imply).

what i meant is: for an observer on either A or B, his local clock appears to go at the same rate, it CANNOT EVER be otherwise (relative to itself).

however, what an observer is looking at here is NOT ACTUALLY 'time'; 'time' in this model is actually the 'relationship' between what his local clock appears to be saying and some other (arbitrary) 'reference' time, (in his past or in his future), and therefore it is NOT a single scalar quantity - by definition, EVER, and in reality.

if the other 'reference time' (clock) is in 'approximately' the same space time (ie. at rest wrt us), and ticks at the same rate on the chart, then we we say, 'nothing is moving' 'nothing is dilating' (much).

if two clocks are moving wrt each other, then all we can say is that 'IF AND WHEN' these objects should meet at rest, in some joint future position, each of the participants A and B, will be taking as their LOCAL origin the LEADING EDGE of their respective time lines (whereas they left any possible previous synchronisation at the TRAILING EDGE of their respective INDIVIDUAL and DIFFERENT trajectories.

if you wish to plan a future meeting between the two clocks and incorporate an 'arbitrary decision' about which clock (frame) catches up or slows down to meet (at rest with) the other.

One clock does not need to "catch up" with the other clock if they BOTH MUST show the same elapsed time (delta)t all the time.

they CANNOT and DO NOT show the same elapsed time ALL the time - by definition, during acceleration/deceleration/change of FOR there is NO SINGLE SCALAR VALUE defined for the 'actual delta-t', because the 'actual delta-t has not happened yet, in either AND BOTH frames.

i visualise, acceleration/deceleration//change of FOR as convolving a rotation of of both 'relative elapsed time' and 'relative distance' curve around 2pi, where the rotation goes also through 2 discontinuities, at which conjuncture, the 'target' (future) magnitudes (of elapsed time and elapsed distance), are 'SAID' to coincide: but, they do not ever truly coincide, only when at 'at rest' and the 'same place', do assume that approximation.

there is in this model therefore effectively an 'advance wave' - but it is ONLY a device for predictive calculation, since everything 'phenomenological' is ONLY ever history.

ps. ie. it only becomes 'dilated' (dilation only has meaning) relative to another frame.

Correct! So each clock keeps exactly the same time-rate within the reference frame in which it is according to Galileo stationary, equal to the time rtae on another clock which is also according to Galileo stationary within its own inertial refrence frame. This is exactly what I have been saying all along.

'...according to the reference frame in which it is' - YES, but as i have tried to explain, this is actually a meaningless quantity, since epistemologically, it can NEVER be otherwise. all we ever say about our own time-line is whether or not it exactly matches some other, at all times. SR says that it NEED NOT and indeed MUST NOT, in the case of bodies in motion relative to each other, and most noticable at near the speed of light.

All clocks are moving relative to one another, but each one of these clocks is stationary within its own inertial refrence frame and therefore there is not a unique stationary clock. Since the physics must be the same within each and every inertial refrence frame, this demands that all clocks must keep the SAME time within their respective inertial reference frames. The clock of one twin can thus not go slower or faster within the respective inertial reference frames of the clocks; withih which the twins are also stationary relative to their respective clocks. So how can one age faster than the other?

there IS a UNIQUE stationary clock, according to my interpretation - in fact there are (at least) 6 to be considered in 4d space-time:

- the stationary clocks of A and B as viewed back along the time-tines of each, backwards towards the clock at the origin of their travels.
- the stationary clocks of A and B as they look BACK along their respective trajectories at the final (2nd) meeting (now a historical fact),
- the 'notional' (variable/delta-t) stationary clocks of any/all possible future targeted meetings of the two objects, whilst they were in motion (including the all important 'conjunction' ('synchronisation' opportunity), when one or the other body effectively turns around - ie. is 'instantaneously stationary' wrt the other).

- the idea extends to equivalence with Einstein's multiple clocks network.
- most importantly however, NONE of these can actually be regarded as truly at rest, only approximately - locally flat/linear.
- and most importantly of all, the value read out on such clocks is of absolutely no value to us, on its own - it is the 'tuple's of BOTH clocks at those places/instances we are comparing and evaluating.

the twins 'actually' end up having aged differently, because, one twin OR the other establishes a trajectory TOWARDS, some ILL-DEFINED point in the the future world line of another, taking as its NEW ORIGIN (frame of reference), its own last instantaneous position - ie. its own (historical) LEADING EDGE towards 'some future' leading edge of the other.

which elapsed time is shorter on arrival, depends on this 're-alignment' of 'forward trajectory. (in fact a 'reflection' of the path taken in 'leaving' the origin, hence the (arbitrary) asymmetry according to who completes which parts of the reunion and how fast.

sorry for any laboring of points - as much for my own benefit as yours.

[johanfprins]

Johan, I'm not going to argue about interpretation of words. I will argue about physically observable phenomena. And that means Twins case where one twin changes frames, the other does not, and they meet up.

If clocks can only be compared once they meet up within the SAME inertial reference frame, how come one MUST do an SR correction on a clock within a satellite to bring it in sync with a clock on the earth; without first bringing the clock on the sattellite back to earth? Can you not see that you are contradicting yourself?

In this (measurable) case relative time dilation is real and as given by SR.

I thought you argued that it is also real on the clock within the satellite without having to bring this clock back to the earth's reference frame. So is the time dilation REAL on the clock which stays in orbit and keeps on moving relative to earth, or can it only be real AFTER this clock has been brought back to earth so that the clock "meets up" with a clock on earth? Can you not see that you are illogical?

Where there is no change of frame, ie one clock goes away from the other forever with speed v, since clocks cannot be directly compared, I am not interested in the "relative rates". In fact don't think these are well defined, because the ratio you get is frame-dependent.

So you are arguing that a clock that "goes away" from earth and stays away from earth while moving with a speed v relative to earth, like a clock within a satellite actually does, cannot be directly compared with a clock on earth since this situation is not "well-defined"? So why are you then also arguing that an SR correction is required for the clock on the sattelite if such a situation is not "well-defined"? A "mushy" SR correction which is not well-defined??

[johanfprins]

- Galileo - maestro, mephisto and genius that he was, did not yet know about the nature of the velocity of light and thus too had no familiarity with Special Relativity - a priori or a posteriori.

These types of remarks and long labouring illogical posts are getting tiring.

The fact is that Galileo stated that there is no physics that can be done within an inertial refrence frame which can determine whether the reference frame is statonary or moving with a constant speed. Yes, Galileo did not know about light speed, since if he did and thought that light speed could be used to determine whether a reference frame is moving or not, he probably would not have claimed what he claimed.

It was Einstein's genius which led him to re-affirm Galileo's postulate by adding that even a measure of light speed can also not be used to determine whether an inertial refrence frame is moving or not. The Michelson-Moley experiment also confirmed that this is the case.

Thus if any physics is different within two inertial reference frames that move relative to one another at any speed, it will violate Galileo and Einstein. If a clock actually ticks slower within a sattelite than it will on earth owing to SR, then this result will be in violation of both Galileo's and Eisntein's relativity. For example if radio-active decay occurs slower within one inertial refrence frame than within another, then both Galileo's and Einstein's theories on relativity MUST BE WRONG. I do not think they are, and therefore the clocks carried by two twins moving relative to one another MUST keep the SAME time within both inertial reference frames. One twin can thus NOT age at a different rate than the other twin.

[rcain]

- Galileo - maestro, mephisto and genius that he was, did not yet know about the nature of the velocity of light and thus too had no familiarity with Special Relativity - a priori or a posteriori.

These type of remarks and long labouring illogical posts are getting tiring.

you're not kidding.

but not nearly as tiring as all the hundreds of thousands of (genius) man-hours put into 'assembling' the theory of SR as we have it and in trying (however partially successfully) to demonstrate it experimentally. i expect at least the same amount of accumulated effort will need to go in to overturning it. nevertheless, you seem prepared for the long haul.

The fact is that Galileo stated that there is no physics that can be done within an inertial refrence frame which can determine whether the reference frame is statonary or moving with a constant speed. Yes, Galileo did not know about light speed, since if he did and thought that light speed could be used to determine whether a reference frame is moving or not, he probably would not have claimed what he claimed.

- yes, once a 'constant speed' is already established. but he did not, could not say the same, on considering 'how that' constant speed (relative to some other thing) came to be established, nor, about how it may come to be disestablished (ie. change velocity/FOR).

at is precisely those 'boundary conditions' we are discussing here - so strictly 'outside' of Galileo's remit, with respect.

It was Einstein's genius which led him to re-affirm Galileo's postulate by adding that even a measure of light speed can also not be used to determine whether an inertial refrence frame is moving or not. The Michelson-Moley experiment also confirmed that this is the case.

indeed, but a comparison of 'relative to light speed' of both objects, CAN determine which object is 'CHOSEN' as the moving object, wrt some future reunion.

Thus if any physics is different within two inertial reference frames that move relative to one another at any speed, it will violate Galileo and Einstein. If a clock actually ticks slower within a sattelite than it will on earth owing to SR, then this result will be in violation of both Galileo's and Eisntein's relativity. For example if radio-active decay occurs slower within one inertial refrence frame than within another, then both Galileo's and Einstein's theories on relativity MUST BE WRONG. I do not think they are, and therefore the clocks carried by two twins moving relative to one another MUST keep the SAME time within both inertial reference frames. One twin can thus NOT age at a different rate than the other twin.

since the physics is Einsteins, and the 'experimental' results are (most probably) true/real, it cannot and does not violate Einstein's laws of physics. Galileo's physics is INCOMPLETE within this framework.

the laws of physics do not change, time is complex/multi-valued, and does not 'exist' in any real sense at all; it is defined simply/only an 'instantaneous' alignment (metric) between two or more scales (gauges).

no, they 'NEED NOT' and 'ARE NOT' wrong, i will argue - and support the 'observational evidence' that 'relative' radio active decay rate does change.

well, despite a most thought provoking discussion, for which i thank you (and admire your stamina/tenacity), we must agree to differ, at this juncture.

[johanfprins]

- yes, once a 'constant speed' is already established. but he did not, could not say the same, on considering 'how that' constant speed (relative to some other thing) came to be established, nor, about how it may come to be disestablished (ie. change velocity/FOR). at is precisely those 'boundary conditions' we are discussing here - so strictly 'outside' of Galileo's remit, with respect.

I must be stupid, but I just cannot follow what you are trying to say. So I am not even going to try.

indeed, but a comparison of 'relative to light speed' of both objects, CAN determine which object is 'CHOSEN' as the moving object, wrt some future reunion.

Here too. This is absolutely senseless to me.

since the physics is Einsteins, and the 'experimental' results are (most probably) true/real, it cannot and does not violate Einstein's laws of physics. Galileo's physics is INCOMPLETE within this framework.

I am not critisizing Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but the wrong interpretation of what time-dilation actually is.

the laws of physics do not change, time is complex/multi-valued, and does not 'exist' in any real sense at all;

Again this is absolutely paranormal nonsense to me. Time is real or else we would not be here.

it is defined simply/only an 'instantaneous' alignment (metric) between two or more scales (gauges).

Time is simply change. If there is no change, there is no time. To come with mathematical gauges, etc is just confusing the issue. We are talking physics!

no, they 'NEED NOT' and 'ARE NOT' wrong, i will argue - and support the 'observational evidence' that 'relative' radio active decay rate does change.

What "observational evidence"? When has there been an experiment done where only the relative speed between two clocks were varied without a change in gravity? Nowhere!

[rcain]

- yes, once a 'constant speed' is already established. but he did not, could not say the same, on considering 'how that' constant speed (relative to some other thing) came to be established, nor, about how it may come to be disestablished (ie. change velocity/FOR). at is precisely those 'boundary conditions' we are discussing here - so strictly 'outside' of Galileo's remit, with respect.

I must be stupid, but I just cannot follow what you are trying to say. So I am not even going to try.

i am simply stating, that there ARE very 'obvious' methods of determining which object has 'effected' a 'change in velocity' relative to another: vis:

- either eg: 'A' records some adjusted speed A%(c), whilst (at that same 'instant'), B records some other adjusted speed B%(c) - if they are different, we know, one of them was affected by impulse more or less than the other - in the limit, which moved.

- or: we simply attach an accelerometer.

Galileo's study/axioms of relativity, do not cover such metrics, so far as i am aware, hence are insufficient to describe what we are talking about here - (sequential) events of 'change'.

indeed, but a comparison of 'relative to light speed' of both objects, CAN determine which object is 'CHOSEN' as the moving object, wrt some future reunion.

Here too. This is absolutely senseless to me.

as described above, the 'value' of any information about 'what actually' moved towards or away from something else, is only seen, when it is used to 'plan' a return trip to 'coincidence' - choose: either A->B or B-A or some combination, of asymmetric magnitudes, in the case under discussion. the 'magnitudes' are already 'predicted' by Lorentz, but only the 'order' of this asymmetric return circuit can determine which side of the time-line discontinuity it must slip: in A's favor or B's.

since the physics is Einsteins, and the 'experimental' results are (most probably) true/real, it cannot and does not violate Einstein's laws of physics. Galileo's physics is INCOMPLETE within this framework.

I am not critisizing Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but the wrong interpretation of what time-dilation actually is.

i understand that, and appreciate your reasoning, which is where we came in to discussion.

i agree, that the interpretation of geometry here appears at first sight 'loose', fuzzy, even dare i say fudged.

but for me at least, it does finally seem consistent, (i know you disagree), and so far at least, appears to do in 'reality' what it says on the tin. ultimate enlightenment however, is still a little ellusive, for me, but i find discussion helps.

the laws of physics do not change, time is complex/multi-valued, and does not 'exist' in any real sense at all;

Again this is absolutely paranormal nonsense to me. Time is real or else we would not be here.

neither we nor our (any of our) clocks would know anything about it if we somehow came to be 'not here'. same as we know nothing about how fast our universe/origin may be moving, (relative to 'something' else). We have Galileo to thank for that.

All we can ever say about time are things like:

- 'strange! these ticks of one clock appears to have become synchronised/de-synchronised with the tocks of that other clock; doesn't matter whether they are clocks or nuerons or subatomic particles, planets or galaxies, compared to each other: every object in the universe is on travelling its own unique time-line, already, 'dislocated' from all others.

'time itself' is only EVER relative. it is impossible to be aware of any other notion or experience - observation.

no, it is not 'paranormal' to say time does not exist; it would be 'paranormal' to suggest otherwise - that we might have some real sense of some 'absolute value'. (nearest we might come is approximating the big bang in earth years).

it is defined simply/only an 'instantaneous' alignment (metric) between two or more scales (gauges).

Time is simply change. If there is no change, there is no time. To come with mathematical gauges, etc is just confusing the issue. We are talking physics!

yes, 'relative' change, between two frames (we can say nothing about our own, except what 'event','action' or 'reaction' came before or after what - and even that is relative along our 'conventionally directed' time-line.

ok, i will try and leave out mathematical jargon/terminology if i can, but it was the nearest thing to concisely and accurately describe what i meant.

at the end of the day, this is JUST a 'calculating engine', we are constructing here, not reality 'by-or-in-itself'; although we are intending (i hope) that the final results DO match 'real observed values' (and phenomena).

no, they 'NEED NOT' and 'ARE NOT' wrong, i will argue - and support the 'observational evidence' that 'relative' radio active decay rate does change.

What "observational evidence"? When has there been an experiment done where only the relative speed between two clocks were varied without a change in gravity? Nowhere!

agreed - there are more 'definitive' experiments yet to try out, but the evidence we do have for SR/GR split and absolute dilation, although reductive, do stack up in likely-hood, to the point of established consensus. that is where we start from; one 'solid experimental disproof' is all that's required - none yet i think.

must go and do some work now.

[ladajo]

Ladajo, you misinterpreted/misrepresented what I wrote in so many places that I can't count them all in the time available. Believe what you want.

What a cop out.

I make a clear counter point to your argument that SR does not accumulate, and that is all you have to say.

I think Tom Clarke is right, you are just launching chaff and not really paying attention to what is going on. I even provided proof that clocks have been flown and returned to earth where you doubted. And you have not comment.

Very sad. Did you finally realize that you had the magnitudes wrong (micro secs verses nano secs)?

[ladajo]

johanfprins wrote:

Quote:
no, they 'NEED NOT' and 'ARE NOT' wrong, i will argue - and support the 'observational evidence' that 'relative' radio active decay rate does change.
What "observational evidence"? When has there been an experiment done where only the relative speed between two clocks were varied without a change in gravity? Nowhere!


agreed - there are more 'definitive' experiments yet to try out, but the evidence we do have for SR/GR split and absolute dilation, although reductive, do stack up in likely-hood, to the point of established consensus. that is where we start from; one 'solid experimental disproof' is all that's required - none yet i think.

I would argue that this experiment is being done everyday when compensating clocks between satellites at the same altitudes, but differing planes. The have same GR, but a varying SR based on orbital paths.
This was also something I floated early on about counter rotating birds at the same height to make it more clear.

The fact is GPS birds are flown in sets, each set has relative motion to the other sets, but not to each other within the set. This also occurs between Geo birds and the lower orbits when doing clock synchs. The SR component varies and is accounted for as a bird drives "toward", passes and then drives "away" in its orbit.

This also occurs when a single bird is tracked around the earth in an equatorial orbit when compared to the sun. The clock varies as it "races ahead" advancing on orbit with earth on the "dark side", compared to the sun, and then "slows" as it passes around between the earth and sun on the "light side" now moving counter to earths orbital path around the sun. This would be a counter clockwise orbit when viewed from the North Pole. This is a proven observed effect. It, in SR terms, creates a satellite that speeds and slows, in its orbit around the sun. There is a small GR component to this, but given the VERY SMALL magnitude of the distance change to the sun, compared to the satellites orbital path around the sun, it is effectively non-existant, especially when compared to the magnitude of the speed change each time the satellite cycles around the earth, compared to earths speed around the sun.

[rcain]

johanfprins wrote:

Quote:
no, they 'NEED NOT' and 'ARE NOT' wrong, i will argue - and support the 'observational evidence' that 'relative' radio active decay rate does change.
What "observational evidence"? When has there been an experiment done where only the relative speed between two clocks were varied without a change in gravity? Nowhere!


agreed - there are more 'definitive' experiments yet to try out, but the evidence we do have for SR/GR split and absolute dilation, although reductive, do stack up in likely-hood, to the point of established consensus. that is where we start from; one 'solid experimental disproof' is all that's required - none yet i think.

I would argue that this experiment is being done everyday when compensating clocks between satellites at the same altitudes, but differing planes. The have same GR, but a varying SR based on orbital paths.
This was also something I floated early on about counter rotating birds at the same height to make it more clear.

The fact is GPS birds are flown in sets, each set has relative motion to the other sets, but not to each other within the set. This also occurs between Geo birds and the lower orbits when doing clock synchs. The SR component varies and is accounted for as a bird drives "toward", passes and then drives "away" in its orbit.

This also occurs when a single bird is tracked around the earth in an equatorial orbit when compared to the sun. The clock varies as it "races ahead" advancing on orbit with earth on the "dark side", compared to the sun, and then "slows" as it passes around between the earth and sun on the "light side" now moving counter to earths orbital path around the sun. This would be a counter clockwise orbit when viewed from the North Pole. This is a proven observed effect. It, in SR terms, creates a satellite that speeds and slows, in its orbit around the sun. There is a small GR component to this, but given the VERY SMALL magnitude of the distance change to the sun, compared to the satellites orbital path around the sun, it is effectively non-existant, especially when compared to the magnitude of the speed change each time the satellite cycles around the earth, compared to earths speed around the sun.

yep. cant argue against that. although, the calculation is still 'reductive' in this case, since we are studying still a mixed GR+SR affect and and it is not necessarily the ONLY unique solution giving those numbers.

(though hard to imagine what else it is more likely to be - i dont recall Johan offering us anything tangible yet, in that regard).

i think the only thing to satisfy Johan will be a pair of real light-speed 'birds' in a gravitation-less sky. we may be waiting some time i fear, and many would say, as you have, that there is little point/more important things to spend a billion bucks on. depends on your point of view.

perhaps future-neutrino's will decide the matter.

[ladajo]

The muon business is pretty standard business these days to show SR. Schools use it as an undergrad demo.

Counter arguments to that?

One of the themes I am picking up with Johan and DeltaV is that the idea that velocity is relative to the absolute of lightspeed. So when asking, "which is moving?" I say the answer lays with which is closer to c. So if something is "faster", then it is closer to c. And to get to the new "closer to c speed", it had to experience more G (or accelleration). I think this is the defining point that is not well considered in the discussion so far. But I may be wrong. A whole lotta words have flown around.

For the record, I entered this discussion with a "reset" and open mind. I have listened to both sides, done my homework, and come the conclusion that SR has real measurable impact that does not unwind.

I REALLY want to run an SR experiment that looks at isotope decay rates. Atomic oscillations are measurable, and we see that they do change in what we call GR and SR constraints. But I am curious to the conflicting looks (ancillary as they are by looking at date collected for other reasons) that say decay rates do not change.

I think it calls for a dedicated experiment involving a deep space mission as a science package addition.