[Bored chemist]

Ignoring experimentally determined fact is not "more clever than Einstein".
It's "less clever than a teenager".

No matter what the forum gods say, please (you; naked scientists) trust your own mental cognitive performance.

Kindly; they will suffice to note objections or new syntheses.

It has nothing to do with this site, or the gods.
The experiments show time dilation in exact accord with GR.
If your idea gives a different answer it is wrong.

[Kryptid]

No matter what the forum gods say, please (you; naked scientists) trust your own mental cognitive performance.

I trust the experimental evidence.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Only if A is the one accelerating.

 In universe, there is not any inert/immobile thing except outer space or LCS; that, they are not tangible too. So, in space environment any one of actors can be choice for the role of reference frame; the inverse of setting is also valid for analyzing. This is called "reciprocity principle". Therefore,  A and B of twin see other one as same age. Egocentric or earthcentric inference is wrong; SR prediction is wrong.

I trust the experimental evidence.

I guess you will find a defect for experimental evidences; as if your aim is not to arrive reality. If you are happy with "time travel", "twin paradox" etc.; you must ignore reciprocity principle and the essence of relativity (genuine/hypothetical relativity).

Here is an experiment: The budget of this experiment is minimal and it is very easy; everybody can repeat.

Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332902408_An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction

[Kryptid]

In universe, there is not any inert/immobile thing except outer space or LCS

You are begging the question again.

So, in space environment any one of actors can be choice for the role of reference frame

You can't compare accelerated frames to inertial frames like that. Acceleration isn't relative. Whichever twin is accelerating will know that they are the one accelerating and not their twin. It's constant velocity that is relative.

SR prediction is wrong.

Every experiment yet made to test relativity has found that its predictions match reality (gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, frame dragging, orbital precession, time dilation, etc.), so what you are saying goes against the experimental evidence.

I guess you will find a defect for experimental evidences; as if your aim is not to arrive reality.

The entire point of experimenting is to understand reality. If the experimental evidence disagrees with one's reasoning, then one must reexamine their reasoning. Nature can't be the one who is wrong.

But the external observer (we; if we are on LCS) knows all different T'i values represent a  unique T time.

And there is your problem. You are assuming that there is such a thing as an absolute reference frame. The sum of modern experimental evidence strongly points to that not being the case.

[Bored chemist]

Egocentric or earthcentric inference is wrong; SR prediction is wrong.

SR isn't egocentric or earth centric.
And it is experimentally shown to be right.

[Bored chemist]

Here is an experiment: The budget of this experiment is minimal and it is very easy; everybody can repeat.

Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332902408_An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction

The link doesn't work for me; it comes up as blocked (presumably by the anti virus s/w.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Egocentric or earthcentric inference is wrong; SR prediction is wrong.

SR isn't egocentric or earth centric.
And it is experimentally shown to be right.

SR designates local objects (source; train, etc) as reference frame for motion of light. This very clear. Formerly, people and scientists considered the Earth as the centre of universe; it is the same fusty paradigm.

Example: The orbit of the Moon is like circle.In primary schools, the event is learned at this meaning.  This is a first perception/education step  for natural events. Whereas, we know that the Earth turns around the Sun; thus, if we consider the Sun as reference role in this case, the orbit of the Moon is like spiral according to Sun. which is correct?

Please read this argument carefully before your stock answer.

We human, especially scientists have to improve our mindfulness  about management of mental references. As first, İt is possible that an idea can be confuted/collapsed  by another idea which if its reference frame is larger / more inclusive.

SR accepts every sequential frames for reference role; so in accordance with SR mentality the value of  light velocity is ' c ' again according to outer space or LCS. I always prefer this external frame for reference role. LCS reference frame has ability and  authority in the meaning of force major to analyze light kinematics.

You may say that If the theory of SR would not be generated, LCS concept could not improved. Yes, I agree this idea.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

An experiment for Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction

I attached this article.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Example: The orbit of the Moon is like circle.In primary schools, the event is learned at this meaning.  This is a first perception/education step  for natural events. Whereas, we know that the Earth turns around the Sun; thus, if we consider the Sun as reference role in this case, the orbit of the Moon is like spiral according to Sun. which is correct?

Stock answer:  Neither is the correct description since motion is relative, as you point out. Hence the term 'proper motion' not being more meaningful than 'the moon spins'. But (proper) acceleration is absolute, as Kryptid pointed out in post 132, so the acceleration of the moon is the same in both those frames.
Time dilation depends not on acceleration, but on moment-of-acceleration.  There's a difference.

Please read this argument carefully before your stock answer.

We human, especially scientists have to improve our mindfulness  about management of mental references. As first, İt is possible that an idea can be confuted/collapsed  by another idea which if its reference frame is larger / more inclusive.

Acceleration is absolute, so selection of a different, or larger context, has no effect on the idea in this case.

As if, Your message does not match with mine

Besides, SR is based uniform motion (fixed speed and linear path). Acceleration = 0

[Kryptid]

Besides, SR is based uniform motion (fixed speed and linear path). Acceleration = 0

That weakness was fixed when general relativity was developed.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Example: The orbit of the Moon is like circle.In primary schools, the event is learned at this meaning.  This is a first perception/education step  for natural events. Whereas, we know that the Earth turns around the Sun; thus, if we consider the Sun as reference role in this case, the orbit of the Moon is like spiral according to Sun. which is correct?

SR was a first approach for light kinematics; thanks to Einstein. However it was a earthcentric theory. Einstein had considered the train and peron.for mental experiments.

Whereas there are outer frames and they generate sequential chain. In theory SR the speed of train is considered as local value according to earth. However, there is a resultant/different value of  the train's relative speed according to the Sun. Because the Earth also moves according to Sun. And the train has other different resultant speeds according to other celestial objects (e.g. galaxies, clusters.... universe, outer space.

Now, are we simultaneously exposed to different tempos of time dilation and different ratios of Fitzgerald contraction in accordance with SR mentality? Our bodies are not be quaking.

Where is causality?

[Kryptid]

Now, are we simultaneously exposed to different tempos of time dilation and different ratios of Fitzgerald contraction in accordance with SR mentality?

Yes, each observer in a different frame will measure a different value for train's time dilation. So what?

Where is causality?

What does causality have to do with it? None of this violates causality.

[Bored chemist]

I attached this article.

Yes, you did.
But I don't know why you attachedit.
It was useless dross the last time you posted it, and it still is.

Had you hoped I'd not notice this time?

Well, anyway, here's where I pointed out that it's useless.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=77389.msg579082#msg579082

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Now, are we simultaneously exposed to different tempos of time dilation and different ratios of Fitzgerald contraction in accordance with SR mentality?

Yes, each observer in a different frame will measure a different value for train's time dilation. So what?

Where is causality?

What does causality have to do with it? None of this violates causality.

1- Much academician and articles have opinion that SR deformations are real. Even, some of them works to explain as an example the lifetime of a simple candela. This understanding neglects/violates the causality.

2- If you say that a person in K' frame does not feel/detect the deformations; in this case, it means, the observers of other sequential frames visually measure or visually perceive SR's deformations. That, this time this deformations became exactly an illusion.

[Kryptid]

Even, some of them works to explain as an example the lifetime of a simple candela.

A candela is a unit of measurement, so what do you mean when you say "lifetime" of a candela?

This understanding neglects/violates the causality.

Again, how do you come to that conclusion?

If you say that a person in K' frame does not feel/detect the deformations; in this case, it means, the observers of other sequential frames visually measure or visually perceive SR's deformations

All frames measure deformations depending on the relative velocities involved.

That, this time this deformations became exactly an illusion.

You keep coming to conclusions without providing adequate reasoning about how you arrived at those conclusions. How do you figure that each observer seeing different time dilation rates has anything to do with an illusion?

[Bored chemist]

Much academician and articles have opinion that SR deformations are real.

Do you understand that someone did the experiment, and found that time dilation is real?
It's not "opinion", it's fact

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Much academician and articles have opinion that SR deformations are real.

Do you understand that someone did the experiment, and found that time dilation is real?
It's not "opinion", it's fact

Experiments are significant. And we must internalize  them as  if we personally perform.

You had refused requirement of a comparing material (LAB. muon) about   the experiment of lifetime of muon. You said we can measure time dilation/life time. Yes, but a conclusion/interpretation cannot be generated without comparison. This was a serious defect for science. The science needs to empierce to essence of natural events not singing by stock answers from outside. You were positioned off-side.

 In my opinion; it seems that, your aim is not to research the natural reality. Probably you may be charge yourself like mobbing mission.  If not, you may say "never mind" and ignore this topic. I don't want to discuss physics at level of polemics.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Even, some of them works to explain as an example the lifetime of a simple candela.

A candela is a unit of measurement, so what do you mean when you say "lifetime" of a candela?

This understanding neglects/violates the causality.

Again, how do you come to that conclusion?

If you say that a person in K' frame does not feel/detect the deformations; in this case, it means, the observers of other sequential frames visually measure or visually perceive SR's deformations

All frames measure deformations depending on the relative velocities involved.

That, this time this deformations became exactly an illusion.

You keep coming to conclusions without providing adequate reasoning about how you arrived at those conclusions. How do you figure that each observer seeing different time dilation rates has anything to do with an illusion?

They say that the life time of a candle flame (which has high relative speed) will  increase according to rest candle. Or moving one of twin will come back younger really. This result is opposite of causality; and common attitude: this result is already called as aparadox. So, they think that the deformation of SR will be realized in metabolic order.

On the other hand, the others think that the deformations are visual detections. I guess this case is like yours opinion.

Different  observers can see different tempos; yes I agree this. No problem. According to this thinking , the SR deformations are seemed/perceived as if they are generating really. We see them with different settings. In my opinion this is illusion and has not significance for science. Is this the all of  SR? Please SR; don't waste science's time.

[Kryptid]

You had refused requirement of a comparing material (LAB. muon) about   the experiment of lifetime of muon. You said we can measure time dilation/life time. Yes, but a conclusion/interpretation cannot be generated without comparison. This was a serious defect for science.

We are capable of producing "cold" muons with a kinetic energy of less than 1 electron-volt. That is equivalent to a velocity of less than 57,700 m/s (less than 0.019% the speed of light). Time dilation at such a low velocity is extremely small (dilated time being more than 99.98% of undilated time). So we have a good experimental basis for knowing a rest muon's decay rate.

This also completely ignores that fact that we have other experiments that have determined the value of time dilation that does not require the use of unstable particles (like the lithium ion experiment I linked earlier, as well as those involving clocks at different altitudes and velocities).

This result is opposite of causality; and common attitude: this result is already called as aparadox.

I don't think you know what the word "causality" means. The twin paradox isn't really a paradox. It was solved a long time ago.

On the other hand, the others think that the deformations are visual detections. I guess this case is like yours opinion.

Like Bored Chemist said, experimental data isn't an opinion.

In my opinion this is illusion

Why should we defer to opinions when we have facts generated by experimental data? Facts are better than opinions.

[Bored chemist]

I don't want to discuss physics at level of polemics.

Since physics is an experimental subject, and you keep ignoring the experimental evidence, you clearly don't want to discuss physics at all.

Why do you keep coming back here and posting stuff that is known to be wrong?