Please post just one case where you have emperical data from two moving objects with unknown velocity histories where you have predicted and gathered supporting data as to the time dilated status of each. Of course you don't.
Are you saying that if one experimenter observes an object, but does not know where it comes from, that counts. But if another knows, that doesn't count? Your velocity history thing is so full of holes anyway. You demand that GPS calculations must be done from an earth centric reference frame. Why? Presumably because they were launched from earth, I'm not really sure, you haven't stated by what logic you choose reference frames. If the satellite was built on mars, instead of earth and then transported from mars to earth it would supposedly behave differently. Course, its actually the Cesium in the atomic clock of the satellite that we are measuring. Where does the Cesium come from? Its naturally occurring. So it was produced in the core of a star. So, from your logic, we would need to know the velocity vector of the star where the cesium was produced. But the velocity vector of the star changes over time, and the cesium we utilize probably comes from many, many different stars, so each atom of cesium should behave differently since it has a different velocity history. Do we also need the velocity history of the lighter elements that fused to produce the cesium?
You are demanding empirical evidence from everyone else for a set of theories that have boatloads of empirical evidence. Clearly, you think that there is some experiment that can be carried out for which the results will not match current theory. You have been unable to not only provide an example of such an experiment, but also unable to predict what the outcome will be.
The only valid data is from known starting points or histories.
I'm really confounded by this statement, what are you trying to say.
The bottom line after all the huff and puff of you guys is that there has not been one case of emperical data to support lorentz contraction.
Lorentz contraction is required to make SR consistent, without it, there is no SR. Its also necessary for our current laws of electricity and magnetism. Both theories are highly successful. Lorentz contraction calculations are used for things as mundane as the design of a cathode ray tube and as complex as a particle accelerator. The use of Lorentz contraction to date has been to make calculations based from the inertial reference frame of a particle. We just don't yet have the power to macroscopic objects to relativistic speeds.
The crux is that length contraction and time dilation are both required for a consistent theory that includes matches all our current observations regarding both the speed of light and its invariance, and the effects of relative velocity of near light speed.
Do you seriously have a problem with a theory because it predicts something we cannot yet measure? That just seems silly, as any alternate theory that specifically does not include lorentz contraction would be equally unmeasurable in that respect and would thus be on equal footing.
LC is nothing but a mathematical artifact creted by switching time standards between frames.
There is no such thing as a "time standard".
1 - You assert a clock is dilated relative to another clock in another frame.
There are actually only two postulates of SR:
# The Principle of Relativity – The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.
# The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – Light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant) in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the light source
Everything else is derived from these two simple principles. Its quite elegant actually. All of your disagreement seems to flow from the first postulate, although, since experiments dealing with the invariance of the speed of light throw a bit of a wrench in your disagreement, you also must disagree with the second postulate. I've already explained how a simple experiment disproves your theory of different observers seeing different photons. You try that experiment yourself yet?
Ok, so back to your time dilation. Time dilation is not an assertion of special relativity, but a consequence of the postulates. Your description is also not quite accurate, the clocks traveling at relative velocities are more accurately measuring time differently. Each will view the other as ticking more slowly.
2 - You then go to the dilated frame and claim relative velocity is the same and since time recorded for a trip is less distance must have changed.
There is no such thing as the "dilated frame". Also, you do not "go" to a frame. You describe the situation or perform calculations from a particular inertial frame of reference. You are also claiming here that lorentz contraction is a consequence of time dilation. Not true, its a direct consequence of the first two postulates of SR. This can easily be shown with a thought experiment involving two mirrors and a photon bouncing between them.
3 - Absolute nonsense at the most obvious and basic level. If the clock is dilated relative to the other then it is dilated in it's own frame relative to the other (one need not be able to sense or measure such dilation) just the fact is that it IS dilated and remains dilated means the trip time is properly accounted for only if distance does not change and the dilated observer "computes" a different velocity for the trip.
Your claims stem from a rejection of both postulates of SR. You somehow concentrate on the things that flow from the postulates rather than the postulates themselves. You claim above in (3) that if A is moving relative to B, that A will observe B's clock ticking slower, and B will observe A's clock ticking slower. From this, it must follow that A can observe clocks moving at many velocity vectors relative to itself. Finding any clock that ticks faster indicates that A is not in a preferred inertial frame of reference. We can then find the clock that ticks faster than all other clocks. This clock is in the preferred inertial reference frame. All motion must be measured relative to this master inertial reference frame.
Earth orbits the sun and also rotates about its axis. Any experimenter on the earth is therefore highly unlikely to find him or herself traveling with no motion relative to the master inertial reference frame. If the experimenter is moving with some velocity V relative to the master inertial reference frame, then by sending out a particles in several different directions, some would travel with a velocity relative to the master inertial reference frame different than that of the experimenter. Therefore, even though the particles would be observed by the experimenter as traveling at the same speed relative to himself, they would decay at different rates as they are all traveling at different speeds relative to the master inertial reference frame.
As experimenters regularly produce particles with limited lifetimes and measure those lifetimes by distance and time traveled before decay. If there were differences in lifetime based on direction traveled, it'd be very easily detectable. No such detection has ever been made. Jets have also been flown in opposite directions around the world with atomic clocks and compared with an atomic clock on the ground. If their direction of travel effected their degree of time dilation, it would have been detected.
You have yet to provide us with any of the below:
* Experimental evidence that shows that the first postulate of SR is incorrect
* Experimental evidence that shows that the second postulate of SR is incorrect
* Experimental evidence that shows that time dilation as described by SR is incorrect
* Experimental evidence that shows that length contraction as described by SR is incorrect
* Experimental evidence that shows that the mass-energy relation predicted by SR is incorrect
* A substitute theory who's predictions match current experimental data and either makes different predictions than SR, or is somehow simpler.
?