Steve3007 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 6:13 pm
Please may I refer to "the absolute frame" as frame E.
You can if you like, but when frame A is automatically serving as a proposed absolute frame, it means that it's proposing itself to be frame E, so a single measurement is a measurement for both frames at the same time (frame A and the frame that it proposes to be the absolute frame).
Please will you tell me and Burning Ghost whether "underlying reality" and "absolute frame" are in some way related to a reference frame in which the ether is stationary.
It is related to them for some sets, but not for others. As I keep saying though, the arguments about contradictions are only important to set 2 models where the clocks are actually ticking and where they are not ticking at the same rate as each other. [They are also relevant to one of the set 1 models, but no one takes that model seriously, so arguments about it can wait until someone makes the mistake of pinning their fading hopes on it.]
There is no contradiction in saying that I am moving with respect to frame A and stationary with respect to frame B. See my previous post for the simple reason why. If you don't accept that, then you're effectively telling me that black is white.
I've told you plenty of times that I have no problem with that - it is not a contradiction. You've been shown where the actual contradictions are, but you just ignore them and keep producing things that aren't contradictions which you claim I class as contradictions. Your inability to tell the difference between the two things shows that you simply aren't getting your head around the subject.
I don't know how I can help you any further, and while you continue to do that I see no point in discussing clocks,
You're the one who needs help - I've told you that the best place to see the contradictions is with the relative ticking rates of clocks, but you keep running away from that because you don't want to admit you're wrong. If you were actually up to this stuff you would have no difficulty in selecting one of the following options and tying your name to it:-
In the underlying reality...
(1) clock A can tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A.
(2) clock A cannot tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A.
Pick one of those options if you're a serious participant in the conversation.
... "event meshing failures" (which Halc explained to you a very long time ago are due to your misunderstanding of the concept of a world line)
Event-meshing failures automatically arise out of any attempt to run time under the rule that no clocks run slow. Anything Halc may have said about a set zero model has no bearing on what happens in set 1 models - with set 1 we try to generate the block in a manner that gives causation a role, and event-meshing failures are absolutely unavoidable there. You are simply arguing against something that goes beyond your limited knowledge and understanding.
or any of the rest of it.
Well, of course you don't want to discuss something that systematically throws SR in the bin.
[A new reply came when I was about to post the above, so...]
Steve3007 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2018, 7:33 pm
Let A = a reference frame.
Let E = the absolute reference frame against which the proposed ether/fabric, if it could be measured, would be found to be stationary.
The statement "I am moving relative to frame A" neither states nor implies anything about my movement relative to frame E, or any frame other than A.
It does if A is proposing to be E, and when you're working with at set 2 model in mind, all frames are making that proposal whether you intend them to or not.
"while" = at the same time.
Time is the thing that is measured by clocks.
They can measure each others ticks on approach and after passing each other, and there's a guarantee that they've done part of that at the same time. They can correct for Doppler shift to get a constant tick rate for the other clock.
The question of whether clock A is measured to be ticking faster than clock B while clock B is measured to be ticking faster than clock A depends on which clock is being used to make this measurement of simultaneity. That has not been specified.
Each is measuring the other (and measuring itself). Clock A is measured by clock A to be ticking more quickly than clock B while clock B is measured by clock B to be ticking more quickly than clock A. No contradiction in that. However, there is only one underlying reality, and in that underlying reality it cannot be the case that both clocks are ticking faster than the other clock. If you disagree with that, you should say so. And if you agree with it, again you should say so. This will reveal whether you are doing magic or physics.