xyzt

It is a paraphrase to md65536's claim that :

This has nothing to do with acceleration or with the twin paradox. Please stop confusing people with your misinterpretations. [math]t'=\gamma(t-vx/c^2)[/math] tells you that the coordinate time is a function of BOTH time AND location. This doesn't mean that "the clock in the front slows down more than the clock in the rear".

No, this is an incorrect conclusion.

If you look at the math in my answer to you , you will realize that "middle" is a frame-dependent notion, it means one position in the frame of the train and a DIFFERENT position in the frame of the track. Correct, this is a manifestation of length contraction. It is responsible for us being able to "cram" more particles in a particle accelerator than predicted (and allowed) by Newtonian mechanics. Special Relativity trumps Newtonian mechanics.

To put swansont's post into math: An object of length [math]L[/math] is located at distance [math]d[/math] from its frame of reference. So , its extent is [math][d, d+L][/math]. In another frame, moving at speed [math]v[/math] wrt the object, its extent is given by the Lorentz transforms, so the extent is: [math][d \sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}, (d+L) \sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}][/math]. So, the object distance to the origin of the system of coordinates contracts just as its length. A train can be described as: [math][(d_1, d_1+L_1),(d_2, d_2+L_2)][/math] in its co-moving frame. In the moving frame, the train is described as: [math][(d_1, d_1+L_1)\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2},(d_2, d_2+L_2)\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}][/math]

You are welcome, it is a good book.

I can do better than that, the whole story of the development of the test theories of SR is explained extremely well in this book: Y.Z. Zhang, Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations, World Scientific (1997)

It is fundamental to the contemporary state of SR.

Yes, it is a fantastic story of integrity. As an aside, we owe to H.P.Roberson the first test theory of SR. One can say that Robertson was for (the) theory (of SR) what Ives was for the experimental test. It was Ives insistence on testing SR that inspired Robertson to create the theoretical framework for the test theories of SR. To date, the Ives-Stilwell experiment is a pillar (together with MMX and KTX) of the test theories of SR. It was Robertson as well who proved that the three tests are the necessary and sufficient set.

Correct, it is the foundation of the Ives-Stilwell experiment, one of the most stringent tests of SR. Einstein conceived it and Herbert Ives, despite of being a convinced anti-relativist, executed it.

"Transverse redshift" is simply a forme of Transverse Doppler Effect which, BTW can be EITHER redshift or(!) blueshift. There is an angle, called critical angle, for which there is zero shift, at the boundary between red and blueshift.

You are mixing gravitational redshift with cosmological redshift. The former is created by the difference in gravitational potential, the latter is created by the increased separation between emitter and receiver (it is similar but not identical to Doppler redshift).

There is no "discovery". There is plenty of delusion, though.

sigh.

I cannot fix delusions.

No, they didn't, it was an experimental setup error,a disconnected cable. You need to stop the nonsense about "relativity is wrong".

I was simply echoing the reaction of another member. Maybe you can give him a "-1" as well. I dare you.

Fringers always support other fringers. I interacted enough with you to know that.

In other words it is too difficult for you to study so you are replacing the studying with your make believe BS. Posting BS is a much easier feat than studying.

I will have to steal the above, it is a brilliant characterization.

Not at all. Your "outside the box" is pure horse manure. Stop deluding yourself claiming that it is science. The standard ignorant crank claim: "I don't understand it, therefore it must be wrong". Err, the burden of proof is on you. You made the BS claims.

Posting made up garbage does not qualify as "thinking out of the box".

Random crank claims do not constitute a debate.

Well, the Earth's Schwarzschild radius is 9 mm. It is tough that you don't understand basic physics. Goo idea. Yes, come back after you learned.