Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Lava, I think you would agree that a skilled watch-maker could, if he chose, calibrate a clock in such a manner that, after only 30 minutes had passed, the clock would register the passage of an hour.

This is in fact what the GPS does to "synchronize" clocks. Even though clocks on moving and elevated objects run at different rates than a clock at the ECI, they can be calibrated to "register" the same amount of time elapsed as has the "master clock" at the ECI, notwithstanding the fact that the rate at which they tick differs.

So the time elapsed at the ECI is the "standard" time. For purposes of theories of motion, such as SR and competing theories, this would be called the "absolute time." The standard never changes, even if and when assorted clocks may be running at different rates.

What relativity says is that two equivalent clocks that are functioning properly, i.e. clocks that would remain synchronized if they were sitting next to each other on a table, will elapse at different rates when they are accelerating at different rates or when they are in different gravitational situations.

We can't say whether one actually slows down or the other speeds up, because we can only see that they sped up/slowed down in comparison with each other from our vantage point as observer.

The only reason I accept this is because I believe that light can redshift or blueshift, which entails that it arrive at a different rate/frequency than it was sent out. So if 450THz red shifts to 550THz green, then that means the same number of wave peaks have reach the receiver in one second as it took the sender to send out at the lower frequency. So if the red sender takes 550/450 seconds to send out the energy that get received by the green sender in just one second, the red sender's clock would be elapsing at 450/550 the rate of the same clock by the green receiver.

Again, I think one problem you're having (no doubt resulting from an over-exposure to the fallacious arguments of relativists) is that you have a tendency to accept the proposition that perception somehow affects external reality.

I agree with what SR (and other theories of motion) say about clock rates changing with speed.

But, sure, we can say which one actually speeds up. Just put one in motion and then later bring it back to the table. Per theory, the clock which then shows the least elapsed time during the interim would be the one which was moving (through space, not internally) faster.

I disagree. Doppler shifts play no part in the calculation of so-called "time dilation" in SR. It does not affect clocks at all, just perceptions. How a particular observer "perceives" frequency does not alter the actual frequency of the light being perceived.

Again, I think one problem you're having (no doubt resulting from an over-exposure to the fallacious arguments of relativists) is that you have a tendency to accept the proposition that perception somehow affects external reality.

I don't think that can happen, because the clock would go slower while moving away, but it would move faster while returning; so the lost time would be made up in the return trip.

I should let you answer my last question first, Lava, but I'll ask another one anyway.

Suppose you're at a football game and some spaceship flies over the field near light speed. Suppose its observers "sees" (calculate would be the right word) the distance between the goal lines to be only 50 yards, not 1o0.

Do you think that, at that moment, the distance between the two lines suddenly shrinks to 50 yards, and then expands back to 100 yards after it passes?

How much affect id the spaceship observers' perceptions actually have on the field?

What does subjective perception have to do with frequency.

Frequency is a rate, i.e. how frequently a wave peak is received. If the wave peaks arrive more frequently than they were sent out, they blueshifted

The issue of relativity isn't whose measurement position is right vs. whose is altered, but rather the fact that measurements change depending on motion and gravitation.

The exact same wave (sound, or whatever) will be perceived differently if an observer is:

a) not moving at all relative to the source
b) moving away from the source, or
c) moving toward the source.

In each case it's the exact same wave. Neither it nor it's frequency changes, just the observer's perception of it.

This reply to my post is not addressing the the underlying point.

The question is this: Do you think that perceptions can alter objective reality?

layman wrote:

This reply to my post is not addressing the the underlying point.

The question is this: Do you think that perceptions can alter objective reality?

Quote:

Why wan't my post clear?

I didn't say it wasn't clear. I said it didn't address the question

Quote:

You are implying that the frequency of light changes according to subjective perception.

The response of yours that I replied to involved a football field and distant, rapidly moving, observers of it, not light frequency.

Do you think that any tangible physical change has taken place in the object (football field) being observed?

And, btw, I am implying no such thing. I am in fact asserting the exact opposite.

but that is just giving preference to the local measurement over the remote/moving measurement.

Do you think that any tangible physical change has taken place in the object (football field) being observed?

Quote:

but that is just giving preference to the local measurement over the remote/moving measurement.

Yes, as it should. The correct measurement is the one that should always be given preference over an incorrect one.

The "local measurement" says that no physical changes have taken place in the object being observed and it is therefore the one which provides the correct answer to that question.

Neither Max nor I give a **** about philosophy or solipsism. This is physics, and people who will fail every time they are given an elementary physics problem are in no position to say that the accepted view is "nonsense."