Do whatever you like. But if you and I are standing side by side (traveling the same speed) it is impossible for you to see a ship traveling at a different velocity than me.....
You know that, I know that, everyone knows that....
Only if you are traveling at a different velocity than I am can you ever see the ship traveling at a different speed than I do.....
You know that, I know that, everyone knows that.....
Deny it to your hearts content because you don't want to accept the simple science of reality.....
How you get anything different from what I said is unclear.
no it's not.
The first postulate is that the laws of physics will be the same in all initial frames.
All *inertial* frames. And what, precisely, do you think that means? it means that every frame is equally valid for all calculations.
The second postulate of SR is that all frames will see light travel at c regardless of your velocity.
More precisely, the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. There is no such thing as absolute velocity in SR.
You just don't know why this is so.... and so you don't know why the first postulate is so as well....
SR then predicts from those two postulates that you can not deduce your own velocity from your devices or from observation.
There is no 'your own velocity' beause velocity is not absolute. it is relative. ALL velocities are relative in SR.
You can easily deduce your velocity relative to two other observers, not one, but a minimum of two. This does not mean you can deduce your absolute velocity from those other two, because you can not deduce the absolute velocity of any object in space.....
Your velocity relative to a single other inertial frame is well defined (and you can do measurements to find it). Absolute velocity isn't an aspect of SR.
But you fail to understand why the first two postulates hold true regardless of the motion of the frame as long as it is constant, because you don't have the faintest clue as to why light always travels at c regardless of each frames velocity... Not the faintest clue.... and you never will because your holy priests can't tell you and their box prohibits them from deducing the correct answer....
Irrelevant for the axioms and the conclusion that there is no such thing as absolute velocity.
Only in your fantasy world where acceleration doesn't cause changes to clocks, even if it an experimental fact.....
Nope, even given the accelerations, triplet B and triplet C do not age by the same amount in the scenario.
Triplet A is the only one that is relevant. His clocks don't change....
This is a violation of the first axiom: The laws of physics are the same in ALL inertial frames. Triplet A and triplet B have *equally* valid frames. Triplet C changes frames when accelerating.
He correctly sees the rate of change of both B and C. Neither B nor C can correctly deduce their own velocity (or have you forgot you just argued that) nor can they even see the change in their own clocks.... Their opinion is useless....
Wrong. I gave all velocities as measured by A just to get around this issue. Both B and C can determine their velocities relative to A.
To say their opinion is useless is *precisely* what the first axiom says is wrong: ALL laws of physics are the same in ALL inertial frames. So ANY inertial frame is equally valid. There is no 'absolute rest frame'.
No, you just don't understand the subject in the slightest...
Time dilation - Wikipedia
"either due to a
velocity difference relative to each other, or by being differently situated relative to a gravitational field."
Yes, a velocity *difference*. That means a relative velocity, which means different inertial frames.
Einstein deduced that gravity was the same as acceleration, hence clocks slow in a gravitational well.... because they have energy added which offsets the rate of decay, just as an accelerating rocket has energy added which offsets the rate of decay.
And that is an aspect of GR, not of SR. Let's deal with SR for the time being.
But then that's why you never give your reason, because you don't have one.....
?? Reason for what?
Agreed, you can say that as many times as you like and the only reason you and I will ever see a spacecraft moving at different velocities is if we are ourselves moving at different velocities... You'll still be wrong no matter how many times you make claims without being able to justify them. But that's because you can't, so all you can do is claim the other person wrong....
I'm simply saying what SR actually says.
yes you did, but then that's why you just keep making claims of incorrectness while being unable to show it is incorrect.....
Standard tactic when one has lost the battle..... knows it and knows he has no scientific response to give.....
Well, do you want to pull out some physics books?
I'll state the truth again.....
If the ships clock (for analogy purposes) slowed 1 year compared to yours and 6 months compared to mine, that would just mean both the ships clock and my clock run slower than yours because I’m moving faster than you too..... and the ships clock runs slower than mine because he’s moving faster than me.... as you would see his clock 1 year slower and my clock 6 months slower as I see his clock 6 months slower. He’s moving approximately twice as fast as me.
And this is where you get SR completely wrong.
First of all, there is no absolute velocity in SR.
Second, in your scenario, you cannot say absolutely that one clock is going slower than another. This only makes sense from some reference frame (supposedly my reference frame).
Third, and much more important. Just because I see the ship's clock as 1 year slower (you need to say this over some time period for me, though...say 2 years)., and I see yours as 6 months slower, DOES NOT MEAN you see the ship's clock as 6 months slower. In fact, that is certainly NOT the case.
I'm going to give specifics in your scenario, so suppose I measure a certain duration between two events in the same location and different times in my frame and I measure those events as being 1 year apart.
If the ship is going past me at a constant speed of 86.6% of the speed of light, it will measure *in its perfectly valid inertial frame* those same two events as being 2 years apart. I assume this is what you mean by saying the ship's clocks are a year slow. But the ship *also* measures those same two events as being 1.7 light years away from each other. The ship will see *me* going past at 86.6% of the speed of light.
If you are going past me at 74.5% of the speed of light, you will measure *in your perfectly valid inertial frame* the time between those same events as being 1.5 years. Again, I assume this is what you mean when you say your clocks are 6 months slow. But you will *also* measure those same two events as being about 1.1 light years away from each other. And you will see *me* going past at 74.5% of the speed of light.
Now, how fast do *you* measure the ship as moving? You might intuit 86.6%-74.5%=12.1% of the speed of light, but you would be wrong. The actual answer is (.866-.745)/(1-.866*.745)=34% of c. The ship also sees you as moving that fast.
OK, let's mix this up a bit. Suppose the ship looks at two events that are in the same location inside the ship and that the clocks on that ship measure those two events as being 1 year apart. Then *I* will measure those two events as being 2 years apart and about 1.7 light years apart. But *you* will measure them as being about 1.06 years apart and .36 light years apart.
In this comparison, your clocks are slower than those of the ship, but not as slow as mine.
Finally, suppose that *you* look at two events that are in the same location in *your* inertial frame and 1 year apart as measured by your clocks. I will measure them as being 1.5 years apart and about 1.1 light years away from each other. The ship will measure those same two events as being 1.06 years apart and about .36 light years away from each other.
In *this* comparison, both my clock and the ship's clock are slower than yours.
Events in space-time are given both by location and time. When you have two events, you both how far apart they are and how much time elapsed between them *in any inertial frame*. Different frames will measure different distances and durations between the same two events. The specifics can be determined by using a Lorentz Transformation: go from the description in one frame to a description in a different frame.
And, once again, ALL inertial frames are *equally* valid since the laws of physics are exactly the same in all of them.
There’s nothing magical about it, it’s all pure science.... your confused because you think it’s magical, it’s just the science of one moving faster than another and the other moving faster than either of those.....
Pure science, no magic involved. Magic is for those that fail to understand why light always travels at c regardless of each frames velocity.....
Nothing magical about it, I agree. But you have to do the calculations correctly. And there is no absolute way to say one ship is moving faster than another. It is simply not something that makes sense independent of some inertial frame and different inertial frames will give different answers.
