Aether and Relativity by Einstein

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

No I did not posit an absolute reference frame, I simply stated that the observer who experienced a change in their rate of motion would be able to distinguish they had not been at rest, which is one of the main points of SR.

That the symmetry of physical laws holds while in motion or at rest means if you cannot see outside of your ship, and you are not accelerating, you cannot tell if you are moving or at rest.

If you stop moving and turn around, even without seeing outside of the ship (let's assume it is automated, so you have no control over the path), you could tell that you had stopped moving and reversed course simply by hanging a pendulum in front of you and watching it's behavior.

Nonetheless, you have to recognize that once you change direction, you are no longer in a symmetrical situation or state of uniform velocity.

First, Einstein assumed it is a standard clock, as it is based on a physical principle which has yet to be invalidated: that the speed of light remains constant regardless of the reference frame of any observer.

If you place two mirrors at a distance which light will travel in some specific time, then light WILL travel between them in that time. That is the only assumption Einstein makes regarding SR, and I'm only using his arguments.

If the mirrors are in motion, the distance the light travels will increase, thus the ticks will be further apart, and the clock will measure less time.

Going back to the example where you are in a closed off room in a spaceship with no way to see outside, if you could look at a light clock and determine you were in motion, then SR would be invalidated.

The only way to resolve this dilemma is to have your very ability to perceive time be adjusted, so even though the clock is ticking slower, you still claim it is ticking at the proper time. Thus your motion through time is slower relative to an observer at rest with their own light clock at rest.

You cannot account for the factor in SR. It is not a symmetrical example, if you are in a closed room and the room is following a circular path, you could simply hang a pendulum in front of you and note that it does not hang vertically, simple logic would then say that you were in some state of motion.

You're attempting to apply SR in situations where it breaks down.

It is not a fundamental principle, it is ONLY valid to assume time dilation is symmetrical between two symmetrical frames of reference. That is the only situation where SR holds to be exact, and it is not the description used to explain the actual effect of time dilation in Einstein's very first paper on SR, in which he clearly describes a case of an observer tracing a path which brings it back to the origin, and the resulting time dilation of his clock relative to the clock which remained at rest.

If you are attempting to include anything which violates your hypothetical symmetric situation, the problem is with your example.

Having your observers brought back together is not a symmetrical situation. One of them can clearly state that they underwent acceleration which the other did not, thus the effect you are referring to would only be valid during the parts of the trip when they were in uniform motion relative to each other. It is a different effect from the actual amount of dilation the twin in motion would incur over his trip.

Yes it is an issue, when one observer changes his state of motion you can determine that the symmetry is broken and perform an accurate measurement.

Time dilation effect in SR is not an approximation of gravitational time dilation in GR.

You are in a delusion here; this is why you keep dragging the issues for gravitational time dilation of GR into time dilation effect of SR for your arguments. And you have locked yourself in circular reasoning by confusing with different types of time dilation phenomena without realizing it. You made assumptions according to your own interpretation to associate the two different types of transformation and fit the theory to your explanations and dwells in the illusion of knowing.

Your example for time dilation effect involves absolute reference frame (you did not even realize this) for the person in motion is not basically correct for SR. Your arguments for non-symmetrical situation of SR is irrelevant in your tautology to imply a reified time dilation for time dilation effect of SR with gravitation time dilation of GR; your arguments are fundamentally flawed in associating gravitation time dilation with time dilation effect. All your logical deductions extrapolated from this invalid foundation are inevitably fallacious for time dilation effect of Einstein’s SR.

Einstein did not assume that the light clock is a standard clock. Your conclusion for this is without any substantial proof and your deductions from this are based on your belief that is interpreted according to your own worldview that fits your assumptions. Your opinions on the issue with argument like “It could only mean this” as your foundation to make conclusion is merely your interpretation accordingly to your perception with your belief.

With all due respect I have observed you are honestly expressing your views on time dilation effect of SR according to your understanding.

Then you don't agree with Einstein, the guy who authored the paper describing the effect we are discussing?

Einstein had categorically mentioned, “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain,” and “Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.” in his comments on mathematical relativism. Einstein thought experiment for SR of him receding from a clock tower at the speed of light clearly illustrates that the phenomenon of time dilation effect refers to a symmetrical situation for both inertial observers in relative motion of uniform velocity that has no physical significant. This thought experiment illustrated by Einstein is sufficed to debunk the mathematical relativism version for SR that quantitatively predicts active transformation of reified time for time dilation effect.

Mathematical relativists postulate reified time and believe that they are representing Einstein’s theory of relativity, but they do not. I can perceive time to be adjusted and therefore understand your explanation for time dilation effect, but I don’t agree with the mathematical relativism version for SR that irrationally postulates reified time. You should know my proposition is against reified time of mathematical relativism for time dilation effect of SR that does not refer to reality; this was elucidated in my previous posts. Whether you agree with time dilation effect is a passive transformation or not is another issue, but you are obfuscating with lame logic in your tautology to conclude that I don’t agree with Einstein’s SR.

In the Einstein’s thought experiment for SR, when Einstein recedes from the clock tower at near light speed, he would observe a time dilation effect of the clock tower with its clock ticking slower, in symmetrical situation of relative motion an observer would also observe a corresponding time dilation effect of Einstein with his clock ticking slower. Can you ever understand that the phenomenon of time dilation effect in Einstein’s SR refers to a reciprocal passive transformation in optical observation under the limit of light speed that has no physical significant?

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

The apparently reciprocal effect from the symmetrical motion would stop, however the observer who (without assuming that he had ever been at rest adjacent to the inertial observer) stopped would have an actual amount of time dilation incurred based on his velocity.

In this example, again let me specify that both observers are in closed rooms, with no link to the outside world other than a TV feed from the other observers room. By no experiment they could perform would they be able to determine they were in motion, and in this limited situation, both would claim the other observer is experiencing time dilation while they are not.

After one of them changed their state of motion, the symmetry would be broken, for not only could they determine that they were in a new state of motion, they could also determine that the other observer had not changed their state.

If the one who was now undergoing acceleration (i.e. change in their motion, ANY change from uniform motion is an acceleration) came to rest at any location, be it 1 light year away, or adjacent to the inertial observer, they would no longer be able to detect any motion experimentally.

Simply checking the inertial observers clock would determine that while there is a time delay (NOT dilation) from the TV signal traveling between them, the apparent rate of their clocks is the same, so they must both be at rest.

Now that they have established that they are at rest relative to each other, they would notice that the duration recorded from the moment when they were adjacent to each other until the moment when they were both at rest would be different for each of them.

The observer who was in motion would have recorded less time than the inertial observer, and again he could confirm that he was in fact in motion.

This is not mathematical relativity, this is actual relativity.

The circumstances you have described above and also in your last post are the issues for gravitation time dilation in GR; these are not relevant to time dilation effect in SR.

The principle for time dilation effect of SR in flat spacetime (a situation without any sort of acceleration deviation) with uniform velocity motion is symmetrical for both inertial observers and does not concern with proper acceleration or inertial acceleration at all. Although the phenomenon for gravitation time dilation would involve active transformations and affect the observation for time dilation effect in non-symmetrical situations, these are two different types of time dilation phenomena that are involved in an observation. All your explanations involving gravitation time dilation of GR with active transformation in absolute reference frame are irrelevant for time dilation effect of SR that is reciprocal in symmetrical situations for both inertial observers in relative motion.

[Max™]

Note, all of my arguments come from this paper: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

While I do intuitively understand and regularly deal with the concepts involved in GR, I am not invoking them here in this discussion.

Time dilation effect in SR is not an approximation of gravitational time dilation in GR.

"If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock7 at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.

Right there it is described as an actual physical effect where the clock that traveled the circular path and returned to a rest state next to the resting clock will incur an actual physical amount of time dilation.

You are in a delusion here; this is why you keep dragging the issues for gravitational time dilation of GR into time dilation effect of SR for your arguments. And you have locked yourself in circular reasoning by confusing with different types of time dilation phenomena without realizing it. You made assumptions according to your own interpretation to associate the two different types of transformation and fit the theory to your explanations and dwells in the illusion of knowing.

No, I am simply pointed out that what Einstein wrote does not match your argument.

Your example for time dilation effect involves absolute reference frame (you did not even realize this) for the person in motion is not basically correct for SR.

I specify no absolute frames, the observer who claims he is at rest may in fact be in motion, but as long as the traveling observer traces out the same trajectory relative to the "rest" observer, the result is the same. I specify only the relational frames of the two observers, as that is correct for SR.

Your arguments for non-symmetrical situation of SR is irrelevant in your tautology to imply a reified time dilation for time dilation effect of SR with gravitation time dilation of GR; your arguments are fundamentally flawed in associating gravitation time dilation with time dilation effect. All your logical deductions extrapolated from this invalid foundation are inevitably fallacious for time dilation effect of Einstein’s SR.

I am not including the gravitational effect of GR, I am strictly working from the assumption that SR is the only theory which exists, and that GR has not been invented yet. SR hinted at GR in many cases.

Einstein did not assume that the light clock is a standard clock.

We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 for the synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at the time4 let it be reflected at B at the time , and reach A again at the time Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light we find that denotes the length of the moving rod--measured in the stationary system.

This description corresponds exactly to the light clock which was later suggested as a better mechanism to explain this effect.

Your conclusion for this is without any substantial proof and your deductions from this are based on your belief that is interpreted according to your own worldview that fits your assumptions. Your opinions on the issue with argument like “It could only mean this” as your foundation to make conclusion is merely your interpretation accordingly to your perception with your belief.

With all due respect I have observed you are honestly expressing your views on time dilation effect of SR according to your understanding.

My conclusion is based on Einstein's paper found here: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

[Max™]

Einstein had categorically mentioned, “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain,” and “Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.” in his comments on mathematical relativism. Einstein thought experiment for SR of him receding from a clock tower at the speed of light clearly illustrates that the phenomenon of time dilation effect refers to a symmetrical situation for both inertial observers in relative motion of uniform velocity that has no physical significant. This thought experiment illustrated by Einstein is sufficed to debunk the mathematical relativism version for SR that quantitatively predicts active transformation of reified time for time dilation effect.

No, it is not sufficient to debunk anything, because it is only showing the specific effect of uniformly moving observers claiming symmetrical time dilation for the other observer.

In his very first paper, he SPECIFICALLY states that there is more to the effects of motion on time than just that:

From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B.

Mathematical relativists postulate reified time and believe that they are representing Einstein’s theory of relativity, but they do not. I can perceive time to be adjusted and therefore understand your explanation for time dilation effect, but I don’t agree with the mathematical relativism version for SR that irrationally postulates reified time. You should know my proposition is against reified time of mathematical relativism for time dilation effect of SR that does not refer to reality; this was elucidated in my previous posts. Whether you agree with time dilation effect is a passive transformation or not is another issue, but you are obfuscating with lame logic in your tautology to conclude that I don’t agree with Einstein’s SR.

In the Einstein’s thought experiment for SR, when Einstein recedes from the clock tower at near light speed, he would observe a time dilation effect of the clock tower with its clock ticking slower, in symmetrical situation of relative motion an observer would also observe a corresponding time dilation effect of Einstein with his clock ticking slower. Can you ever understand that the phenomenon of time dilation effect in Einstein’s SR refers to a reciprocal passive transformation in optical observation under the limit of light speed that has no physical significant?

That is not the only part of SR, have you even read the actual paper he wrote about the theory?

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905, Albert Einstein
Translations can be found all over the place, including all through my various posts, such as this link: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/.

That is HIS work, and in it he specifically states that while an observer at the clock tower might see a symmetrical effect between the two clocks, if he turned around and came to rest near the clock tower, he would have recorded less time during his journey than the resting observer measured for his journey.

In his words, not someone elses version of it.

[Max™]

The circumstances you have described above and also in your last post are the issues for gravitation time dilation in GR; these are not relevant to time dilation effect in SR.

The principle for time dilation effect of SR in flat spacetime (a situation without any sort of acceleration deviation) with uniform velocity motion is symmetrical for both inertial observers and does not concern with proper acceleration or inertial acceleration at all. Although the phenomenon for gravitation time dilation would involve active transformations and affect the observation for time dilation effect in non-symmetrical situations, these are two different types of time dilation phenomena that are involved in an observation. All your explanations involving gravitation time dilation of GR with active transformation in absolute reference frame are irrelevant for time dilation effect of SR that is reciprocal in symmetrical situations for both inertial observers in relative motion.

From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B.

It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide.

If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be second slow.

Exclamation point.
Period.
The time dilation you are stuck on is an apparent effect, but SR postulated a physical effect as well, which is directly related to the actual velocity and duration of an objects trajectory.

At no point in this have I stated anything from GR, which further modifies the effect described in SR to include accelerations.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Note, all of my arguments come from this paper: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

While I do intuitively understand and regularly deal with the concepts involved in GR, I am not invoking them here in this discussion.

You reveal to me that you have mistaken the phenomenon of time dilation cause by inertial acceleration of an object in motion of uniform velocity on a curvilinear path as the time dilation effect of SR. This explains why you keep dragging in GR circumstances to explain your interpretation for time dilation effect of SR.

There is no statement in that paper that specifically mentioned that time is physically transformed; but it did specifically mentioned that it is the watchs or clocks that are observed to be slower under different time dilation circumstances.

Right there it is described as an actual physical effect where the clock that traveled the circular path and returned to a rest state next to the resting clock will incur an actual physical amount of time dilation.

Are you saying this situation of geodesic motion traveling in curvilinear path at uniform velocity does not involve an inertial acceleration that would cause the active transformation?

No, I am simply pointed out that what Einstein wrote does not match your argument.

Your point of view above is subjective to your interpretation for time dilation effect of Einstein’s SR.

I specify no absolute frames, the observer who claims he is at rest may in fact be in motion, but as long as the traveling observer traces out the same trajectory relative to the "rest" observer, the result is the same. I specify only the relational frames of the two observers, as that is correct for SR.

I am not including the gravitational effect of GR, I am strictly working from the assumption that SR is the only theory which exists, and that GR has not been invented yet. SR hinted at GR in many cases.

That paper published in 1905 before GR was published would validate that this generalized situation is not a geodesic motion involving inertial acceleration that was later elucidated in GR?

This description corresponds exactly to the light clock which was later suggested as a better mechanism to explain this effect.

I have no issue with the light clock is a better mechanism to illustrate time dilation effect of SR in that specific example. However, this does not conclude that the light clock is a standard clock.

For example, two identical standard clock A and standard clock B are moving away from a location x in uniform motion at a velocity of 0.49c in flat spacetime (c is the speed of light). An observer at location X would see both clocks to be symmetrically time dilated to a Lorentz factor of approximately 1.147 when comparing with the standard clock with him. The observer with clock A would see that clock B is time dilated to a Lorentz factor of 5.025 at a relative velocity of 2 x 0.49c when comparing with clock A, and in symmetrical situation the observer with clock B would see that clock A is time dilated to an identical Lorentz factor of 5.025 when comparing with clock B. This example maintaining a symmetry situation for both standard clocks in motion illustrates that time dilation effect is an optical illusion of relative motion in uniform velocity that has no physical significant.

If light clocks are used instead for the above example that would physically tick at a slower rate when it is in uniform velocity motion, the observer at location X would see both light clocks in motion to be symmetrically running slower by two times of Lorentz factor at 2.294 instead when comparing to his light clock at rest. This double Lorentz factor observed with this SR example using light clock is invalid for Lorentz transformation in the quantitative prediction of time dilation effect in SR. Nevertheless, the observer with clock A would see that clock B is still time dilated to the Lorentz factor of 5.025 when comparing with light clock A and this phenomenal of time dilation effect in SR is symmetrical for the other observer with light clock B, this is because both light clocks in motion of similar velocity are moving in opposite direction under the same flat spacetime circumstances and therefore both light clocks are physically ticking at a same slower rate; this situation with two identical light clocks that are in motion has a symmetrical time dilation effect in SR conforms with Lorentz transformation.

This example qualitatively and quantitatively illustrates that Einstein’s light clock is not a standard clock.

If geodesic motion of uniform velocity in curvilinear path is considered in the example, than a function of gravitational time dilation that would physically slow the standard clocks as a result of inertial acceleration has to be factored in, this is for obtaining an accurate prediction for the event observed from the at rest location x observing a combined phenomena of time dilation in SR and GR for the moving standard clocks. This gravitational time dilation cause by geodesic motion would not be apparent to the two observers in uniform velocity motion, as they both would undergo an identical active transformation. However, the geodesic motion would cause active transformation of the identical standard clocks in symmetrical situation cannot be taken for granted that it is time that is being physically dilated.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

No, it is not sufficient to debunk anything, because it is only showing the specific effect of uniformly moving observers claiming symmetrical time dilation for the other observer.

In his very first paper, he SPECIFICALLY states that there is more to the effects of motion on time than just that:

That is not the only part of SR, have you even read the actual paper he wrote about the theory?

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905, Albert Einstein
Translations can be found all over the place, including all through my various posts, such as this link: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/.

That is HIS work, and in it he specifically states that while an observer at the clock tower might see a symmetrical effect between the two clocks, if he turned around and came to rest near the clock tower, he would have recorded less time during his journey than the resting observer measured for his journey.

In his words, not someone elses version of it.

Your arguments are based on a misconception for time dilation effect of Einstein’s SR.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Exclamation point.
Period.
The time dilation you are stuck on is an apparent effect, but SR postulated a physical effect as well, which is directly related to the actual velocity and duration of an objects trajectory.

You propositioned of active transformation for time dilation effect in SR is fallacious on Einstein’s thought experiment of the drowning person moving away in uniform relative motion from an inertial observer at near light speed.

I believe you are referring to the Muon experiment from the perspective of mathematical relativism. Barring the understanding for the machinery of Muon, it cannot be conclusive on what causes the observed mean lifespan of Muon to be extended in uniform velocity motion and has corresponded with Lorentz factor according to its speed. The claim in mathematical relativism that time is physically dilated for Muon in high velocity motion is simply absurd in a double standard of a common physical reality; it is a myth explained with moot reasoning. Although the math for time dilation effect has worked for these Muon experiments, there could be other scientific reasons that would account for the physical change of properties for Muon according to function of Lorentz factor and hence extending its mean lifespan that corresponds to higher velocity.

To claim time is physically dilated is valid for the behavior of Muon in high velocity motion and corresponds to the math equation of time dilation effect of SR that works, is as fallible as the falsified Geocentric model for its claim on Sun rotates around Earth in predictable manners that can also be illustrated with its workable math equation. The math equation in Geocentric model works for all seasons of the year and can accurately account for its precession, solstice and equinoxes, but can these accurate predictions validate that the Sun takes twenty-four hours to rotate around the Earth?

At no point in this have I stated anything from GR, which further modifies the effect described in SR to include accelerations.

You did so in all your replies for time dilation effect of SR without realizing it.

[Max™]

You reveal to me that you have mistaken the phenomenon of time dilation cause by inertial acceleration of an object in motion of uniform velocity on a curvilinear path as the time dilation effect of SR. This explains why you keep dragging in GR circumstances to explain your interpretation for time dilation effect of SR.

No, in that paper he does not consider acceleration except in the very last part, and only partially. Simply motion is considered. I've made no mistake.

There is no statement in that paper that specifically mentioned that time is physically transformed; but it did specifically mentioned that it is the watchs or clocks that are observed to be slower under different time dilation circumstances.

It specified that the clocks actually recorded less time while in motion, not just that they ran slower.

Are you saying this situation of geodesic motion traveling in curvilinear path at uniform velocity does not involve an inertial acceleration that would cause the active transformation?

Einstein did not consider acceleration in that paper.

Your point of view above is subjective to your interpretation for time dilation effect of Einstein’s SR.

No it is not, I'm simply transcribing his results, not interpreting them.

That paper published in 1905 before GR was published would validate that this generalized situation is not a geodesic motion involving inertial acceleration that was later elucidated in GR?

This paper only considers two states: rest, or uniform motion, it is unrealistic in that consideration, but Einstein could not resolve acceleration properly at the time. That troubled him til he wrote GR.

I have no issue with the light clock is a better mechanism to illustrate time dilation effect of SR in that specific example. However, this does not conclude that the light clock is a standard clock.

For example, two identical standard clock A and standard clock B are moving away from a location x in uniform motion at a velocity of 0.49c in flat spacetime (c is the speed of light). An observer at location X would see both clocks to be symmetrically time dilated to a Lorentz factor of approximately 1.147 when comparing with the standard clock with him. The observer with clock A would see that clock B is time dilated to a Lorentz factor of 5.025 at a relative velocity of 2 x 0.49c when comparing with clock A, and in symmetrical situation the observer with clock B would see that clock A is time dilated to an identical Lorentz factor of 5.025 when comparing with clock B. This example maintaining a symmetry situation for both standard clocks in motion illustrates that time dilation effect is an optical illusion of relative motion in uniform velocity that has no physical significant.

If light clocks are used instead for the above example that would physically tick at a slower rate when it is in uniform velocity motion, the observer at location X would see both light clocks in motion to be symmetrically running slower by two times of Lorentz factor at 2.294 instead when comparing to his light clock at rest.

Until this point, you are correct in the description of the symmetrical observation of time dilation between observers in uniform motion, and the beginning of the description of the time dilation observed by a resting observer. For some reason you then make an illogical assumption which is not backed by the paper, or the theory of Special Relativity.

This double Lorentz factor observed with this SR example using light clock is invalid for Lorentz transformation in the quantitative prediction of time dilation effect in SR.

I do not know where you get this idea from, but it is obviously the source of the problem, and it is not suggested by Einstein.

Nevertheless, the observer with clock A would see that clock B is still time dilated to the Lorentz factor of 5.025 when comparing with light clock A and this phenomenal of time dilation effect in SR is symmetrical for the other observer with light clock B, this is because both light clocks in motion of similar velocity are moving in opposite direction under the same flat spacetime circumstances and therefore both light clocks are physically ticking at a same slower rate; this situation with two identical light clocks that are in motion has a symmetrical time dilation effect in SR conforms with Lorentz transformation.

No, they are not correct in their observation that the other observer is dilated while they are not, that is an artifact of their motion, only the rest observer is correct in his observation that both are in fact experiencing time dilation.

This example qualitatively and quantitatively illustrates that Einstein’s light clock is not a standard clock.

No, it does not. You leap to a conclusion based on a prior mistake, and have only illustrated the perils of not cross checking your statements with the source material.

If geodesic motion of uniform velocity in curvilinear path is considered in the example, than a function of gravitational time dilation that would physically slow the standard clocks as a result of inertial acceleration has to be factored in, this is for obtaining an accurate prediction for the event observed from the at rest location x observing a combined phenomena of time dilation in SR and GR for the moving standard clocks. This gravitational time dilation cause by geodesic motion would not be apparent to the two observers in uniform velocity motion, as they both would undergo an identical active transformation. However, the geodesic motion would cause active transformation of the identical standard clocks in symmetrical situation cannot be taken for granted that it is time that is being physically dilated.

You're wrongly considering the effects, and in this discussion we were strictly regarding the effects of SR.

[Max™]

You propositioned of active transformation for time dilation effect in SR is fallacious on Einstein’s thought experiment of the drowning person moving away in uniform relative motion from an inertial observer at near light speed.

I believe you are referring to the Muon experiment from the perspective of mathematical relativism. Barring the understanding for the machinery of Muon, it cannot be conclusive on what causes the observed mean lifespan of Muon to be extended in uniform velocity motion and has corresponded with Lorentz factor according to its speed. The claim in mathematical relativism that time is physically dilated for Muon in high velocity motion is simply absurd in a double standard of a common physical reality; it is a myth explained with moot reasoning. Although the math for time dilation effect has worked for these Muon experiments, there could be other scientific reasons that would account for the physical change of properties for Muon according to function of Lorentz factor and hence extending its mean lifespan that corresponds to higher velocity.

What? The fact that the math describes the effect, even predicts the effect, would not lead one to assume this is a coincidence. That is an absurd claim to make.

Mathematical Relativism IS Actual Relativism. You cannot discard the working and logical math simply because you personally don't like it. You can try to produce your own version without it, but it should be noted that you are NOT using the actual theories put forward by Einstein, because he most definitely used mathematics to describe and provide a means to proof his theory.

To claim time is physically dilated is valid for the behavior of Muon in high velocity motion and corresponds to the math equation of time dilation effect of SR that works, is as fallible as the falsified Geocentric model for its claim on Sun rotates around Earth in predictable manners that can also be illustrated with its workable math equation. The math equation in Geocentric model works for all seasons of the year and can accurately account for its precession, solstice and equinoxes, but can these accurate predictions validate that the Sun takes twenty-four hours to rotate around the Earth?

That is an absurd comparison, I'm going to assume you're joking.

You did so in all your replies for time dilation effect of SR without realizing it.

Just because you claim vigorously that something is so, when it is easily proven otherwise, does not help your case.

It is easily shown that I have not invoked the arguments of GR.