The faster you are trying go the slower you actually move?

[bunburryist]

First, it is inaccurate to say that things outside your spaceship slow down. You need to think in terms of frames of reference. Secondly, the effects of time dilation and length contraction are symetrical. They will see your time slow down as well. There seems to be a paradox, but there really isn't.

 

In order to understand all this you need to understdand the concept of relativity of simutaneity - the idea that events that are simutaneous in one frame of reference happen at different times in another; that events that happen at one place in one frame of reference happen at two places in another. The best book I've found for explaining these ideas - in fact the only one I've found that has worked for me - is called Understanding Relativity, by Leo Sartori.

 

I can't stress how important it is that you understand relativity of simultaneity. It might sound like just another abstract relativistic concept, but it is essential for understanding relativity. Do a google search for it as well, and I'm sure you'll find a lot online. Good luck - Rob

[TriggerGrinn]

I get bothered that there is various ways to describe relativity and relativistic effects. both in logic and in mathamatics.

[tomgwyther]

The easiest way I've found to explain Einstiens theory to people is to substitute 'light' for 'sound'

Sound moves much slower but exhibits similar characteristics to light, because it moves slower, it's properties are more apparent.

 

You know the way the pitch of a police siren changes as it goes past you, [it speeds up or slows down depending on its position and speed 'relative' to you.]

the same is true of light, you perceive it differently depending on your possition/speed.

 

Now imagine two police cars, both with their sirens going. one driving along the road and one stationary, as one drives past the other, try to imagine how each police man would perceive the other,

[Janus]

The easiest way I've found to explain Einstiens theory to people is to substitute 'light' for 'sound'

Sound moves much slower but exhibits similar characteristics to light, because it moves slower, it's properties are more apparent.

 

You know the way the pitch of a police siren changes as it goes past you, [it speeds up or slows down depending on its position and speed 'relative' to you.]

the same is true of light, you perceive it differently depending on your possition/speed.

 

Now imagine two police cars, both with their sirens going. one driving along the road and one stationary, as one drives past the other, try to imagine how each police man would perceive the other,

 

What you are describing is known as a Doppler Shift. While light and sound both exhibit such shifts, it has nothing to do with the Relativistic effects described by Einstein. The effects of Relativity are what are left over after the Doppler shift has been accounted for.

 

So, no, your method is not the easiest way to describe Relativity as it actually leads to an erroneous conclusion as to the nature of the theory.

[bunburryist]

Tomgwyther - Although it is often confused with it, the Doppler shift has nothing to do with special relativity. Relativistic effects come from observers making measurements in different frames of reference. The cop siren anaology is irrelevant.

 

Here is one of the easiest ways to understand relativity of simultaneity. Imagine a train box car with a light emitter in the center of it. In the cars frame of reference, if the light flashes, the beams will reach both ends at the same time. Now imagine that you are on the ground as the train passes to your right near the speed of light. After the light flashes, and as the light is traveling toward the ends of the train, the train will move to the right from the origin of the light. The result is that the rear of the train is moving toward the light source, while the front of the train is moving away. Since light propagates in both directions at the same rate, it will reach the rear of the train first.

 

The question, then, is - are the events simultaneus? Well, in the trains frame of reference, they are. In your frame of reference, they aren't. Clocks are the same way. Two clocks at the ends of the train (which are syncronized) will always read the same time in the trains frame of reference. However, in your frame the clock at the back will always be somewhat ahead of the clock in the front. The reason the train appears shorter in your frame is that, for what is for you simultaneous observations of the front and back of the train, you will see the back of the train further in the future than the front.

 

I think one of the problems here - and this is often a problem in trying to understand relativitistic ideas - are the words we use. Strictly speaking, you don't see the same train that exists in the trains frame of reference. Imagine that there are very fast carpenters working on the train as it passes, and that they are nailing boards onto the front and the back at the same rate in the trains frame of reference. Since (in what are for you simultaneous observations of the front and back of the train) you are seeing the back of the train further in the future than the back, there will always be more boards on the back than the front in your frame of reference. So do you see the same train? I would say, not really, in the sense that the train you see has more boards on the back than the front. So it's no such much that THE train is shorter in your frame of reference, but rather that THE train is manifest differently in different frames of reference as a result of our measurements. What are simultaneous events in the trains frame of reference are, for you, two distinct events at different times.

 

Time dilation is a result of the same thing. Imagine a long row of clocks attached to the train (which are snchronized so that they always read the same time in the trains frame of reference). (Something to keep in mind here is that it's not just things that contract, but rather the whole frame of reference - space and all.) Remember how I said you see the back of the train car is FURTHER IN THE FUTURE than the front? Well, the same goes for the row of clocks. If you make two observations, one second apart, since the clocks behind are further in the future, in one second you will see a clock that reads some time in the future (less than a second behind the first observation) - hence you will conclude that time has slowed down for him. So you see, it's really an artifact of measurement! And since it is an artifact of measurement, if he observes clocks in your frame of reference, he will conclude that your time goes slower.

 

You can see how semantics messes us up. Our language is implicitly in one frame of reference, so it becomes awkward for us to talk about relations between events in different frames of reference. This is why people so often resort to math - it makes it easy to talk about, but it does not translate in to conceptual thinking. I hope this helps. Rob

[TriggerGrinn]

Understanding Relativity

No time change. Position and age change.

 

 

Here is one of the easiest ways to understand relativity of simultaneity. Imagine a train box car with a light emitter in the center of it. In the cars frame of reference, if the light flashes, the beams will reach both ends at the same time. Now imagine that you are on the ground as the train passes to your right near the speed of light. After the light flashes, and as the light is traveling toward the ends of the train, the train will move to the right from the origin of the light. The result is that the rear of the train is moving toward the light source, while the front of the train is moving away. Since light propagates in both directions at the same rate, it will reach the rear of the train first.

 

The question, then, is - are the events simultaneus? Well, in the trains frame of reference, they are. In your frame of reference, they aren't. Clocks are the same way. Two clocks at the ends of the train (which are syncronized) will always read the same time in the trains frame of reference. However, in your frame the clock at the back will always be somewhat ahead of the clock in the front. The reason the train appears shorter in your frame is that, for what is for you simultaneous observations of the front and back of the train, you will see the back of the train further in the future than the front.

 

Now imagine that you are on the ground as the train passes to your right near the speed of light. After the light flashes, and as the light is traveling toward the ends of the train, the train will move to the right from the origin of the light.

 

At the exact moment of perpendicular observation, The actual material of the train will be a given distance (d) futher along its path that one plainly observes, and that is considerably close to the same distance the light has to travel from the train, to the observer. Note: When the train is very near the speed of light.

 

This is to say:

call [X] the observer making an observation (at rest)

call this the train observer see's: [To]

call this the train where the material is: [Tm]

and these lines ----- will represent light paths.

[To]---------[Tm]

|

|

|

|

[X]

 

So as we try to concieve that we can observe the light traveling through the train we are restricted by all means to do such a thing.

 

Secondly, we have to consider the fact that any accelerating object we observe (that is the light that reaches the observers frame) will have its position altered, and time altered.

 

Thirdly, when we have a frame that is inertial, and this means is unchanging in velocity, it is not experiencing any kind of acceleration force, the clocks that are in both frames will observe to tick in sync regardless of which frame one chooses to observe from.

 

This because of a very simple explaination. Consider the sun, and exclude all vaiables of orbit. We are using Stationary moments

 

We have 100% accuracy in predicting is position right now, because it is interial, there are no accelerations.

 

However, if the sun accelerates, and that is to say it moves or changes velocity (assuming it could), it will take us 8mins to realise this has happened.

 

Assuming we knew the sun moved before we could physically observe it on earth, we say, during those 8mins a law of physics restricted observer (one who does not know the suns motion before it happens) will have No possibility of predicting its position accurately.

 

Now back to our super fast train. At a constant acceleration rate.

 

As the train accelerates towards the speed of light it will continue and continue to move futher and futher beyond the position we observe it to be. It is not inertial. It is accelerating. We will have very poor ability to use the light we see for the tool to measure its position. We will need to calculate the ever changing error of position, to predict where it is.

 

Then let us say by using only the light we observe to claim where the train is located, we observe it reaches its final and maximum velocity of 99% the speed of light, and we plainly see it is about 1 light day away from our position of observation, when it reaches its final velocity.

 

However at this point just before the train is observed to reach its inertial velocity the train is infact much further along its path than the light displays it to be. It is at a place of which we can not physically see it.

 

Now that the train is inertial and moving nearly the speed of light the light coming from the train as it comes directly at us is very close to the train itself, and there is such a great distance between each 'pulse' or wave front that the object infact becomes a very long streak, or more accurately a longer observable streak. Although, we can use in a thought experiment (to make it visible) that when we observe it reach its maximum velocity, we can calculate its actual position and get a clear image in our minds where it is.

 

At this point it will be 1light day - 99% the speed of light light day of distance away from us.

 

Considering the train passes us at a distance of about 10 light minutes away, the train will pass us a little less than 10mins (since its going 99% light)before we actually visualise it to do so.

 

But while it does pass us at an inertial rate, the time is the same for each observer in each frame and it is only during he acclerations is there an observed 'time' dilation.

 

So there will be no length contraction of the actual object, there will be instead, a huge change of literal position, and a long streak of uncertainty of where the actual object is, depending on how accurate of an instrument you use to detect it. Although by calculating it and using a though experiment, you can invision a source point of where it looks to be and a real point of where it is but you can not physically detect it in reality.

 

Why is this true?

 

Consider an object as far away as the moon suddenly raced towards us instantly at 99% the speed of light. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to detect it by any means before it hit you.

 

However in a thought experiment you can physically slow it down in your mind and see that the old position and the new positions are sepearted by almost no distance.

 

As for the observer on such a fast object, that much of a rapid acceleration would physically stop all the atoms (which are more accuraly, uncertain quantum fluctuations) from moving and the rate at which anything ages would almost be null, of couse exlcluding the fact it would turn into molten plasma from the harsh accleration. But in our mind, since we make it so it does not melt we just have to accept that the "atoms" ineractions slowed down and aged slower.

 

Gravity is a collection of atomic material that opperate slower relative to say: a less dense and massive volume of atomic material. The same as acceleration causes time dialtion. Gravity IS entwined with time dilation.

 

Consequently though, the flow of time is always the same in all frames of reference. Suggestive that each unit of matter mass/energy is its own unit of space time, and only when light travels via particle/wave duality from one frame to another, is there any kind of observable difference in "time" in the light (like an observed clock), however, if you flew to one or the other of the two locaitons a second would be a still measure out as a second relative to that observer (clunky mechinical clocks would remain in more or less sync, however atomic clocks could change) The only consideration for a space-time is because light reports differences, depening on source it came from.

 

In this way You can consider light as a traveling wave through space, where space remains constant, that is, positions of objects stay as they are or are going, like an inverse singularity, and the time is meerly an observation in the light changing frames, or atomic velocity differences.

 

All frames are their own universe in other words.

[DZane]

Here is my theory of faster than light travle.

 

A -----------------------------> B

Going from point A to point B you are out running the normal visuals.

 

So if you look behind you everything will be moving backwards.

 

 

A <-----------------------------B

 

Going back to point A from poing B, everything will be speed up. Therefor you cannot travle in time by going faster than light.

[TriggerGrinn]

DZane,

 

Good to work on ideas, its good mind excerise. However, that is not a theory it is an idea.

 

Show how it is proveable and it can become a theory.

 

As an idea, I am going to have to tell you I think its flawed when you consider the strange nature of our universe.

 

Although, untill someone tries flying near the speed of light relative to their surroundings, I will never say never

[swansont]

Thirdly, when we have a frame that is inertial, and this means is unchanging in velocity, it is not experiencing any kind of acceleration force, the clocks that are in both frames will observe to tick in sync regardless of which frame one chooses to observe from.

 

Clocks in different inertial frames will not stay in sync. They will each observe the other frame as running slow.

[TriggerGrinn]

Thank you for cleaning up my wording.

 

It is true the 'observation' of clocks in different inertial frames will not stay in sync. For relatively slow moving frames A clock reducing distance will speed up, and a clock increasing distance will slow down, this is not the 'time' this is the doppler effect of intervals and frequency. The only moment of sync is a situation with a moment of perpedicular motion. That observation will allow for zero change in distance and an observation of considerable rest.

 

However the actual rate of time in sync, the rate of which things age in each frame. When one makes the proper calculations of velocity, and doppler effect, you arrive at a calculation of syncronized 'time'. Where time is a comman misinterpratation for an observation of a clock.

 

However it is the processes of acceleration that the time, or rate of aging time, can be affected.

[swansont]

Thank you for cleaning up my wording.

 

It is true the 'observation' of clocks in different inertial frames will not stay in sync. For relatively slow moving frames A clock reducing distance will speed up, and a clock increasing distance will slow down, this is not the 'time' this is the doppler effect of intervals and frequency. The only moment of sync is a situation with a moment of perpedicular motion. That observation will allow for zero change in distance and an observation of considerable rest.

 

The slowing works independent of the direction of travel. Since time is the integrated frequency (i.e. a phase), if you change frequency, you change the time rate.

 

However the actual rate of time in sync, the rate of which things age in each frame. When one makes the proper calculations of velocity, and doppler effect, you arrive at a calculation of syncronized 'time'. Where time is a comman misinterpratation for an observation of a clock.

 

However it is the processes of acceleration that the time, or rate of aging time, can be affected.

 

The acceleration is required to bring one of the clocks into the other's frame, so that a side-by-side comparison can be made. Since acceleration is not relative, we then know whose clock has changed frames.

[TriggerGrinn]

The slowing works independent of the direction of travel. Since time is the integrated frequency (i.e. a phase), if you change frequency, you change the time rate.

 

I will require you show work to convince me otherwise.

 

 

 

Now for relativistic velocities we reach a debate. There are two conceptions.

 

1) That velocity infact causes time dilation

 

2) That it is only acceleration forces that can create permanent time dilation.

 

If we prefer to continue we will have to use mathmatic and information sources to make a constructive continuation of this thread.

 

[math]\gamma = \frac {1}{\sqrt {1-\frac {v^2}{c^2}}}[/math]

 

All square roots produce two products, this is identical to

 

[math]\gamma = \frac {1}{\left (1- \frac {v^2}{c^2}\right )^{\,1/2}}[/math]

 

When you generate two products you can not discard one as having no purpose. As such these two seperate quantities of the same system are to be considered as having different qualities.

 

I am not confident to say which quality, such as + or -, the product should be considered to contain, or if each frame of the two frame system must be considered to contain each of their own half of the product.

 

A clock can only be observed to run slow, in acceleration observations.

 

 

Since such experiements can really only be illustrated in a thought experiment, regardless of the medium the experiment is portrayed (paper, animation, in your mind) it must not break true obserable effects that will occur in reality.

 

So, as one observes a fast moving object, traveling perpendicular, we must accept that when we take that 'snap shot' of the motion, we observe, an image of the past, determined by the distance the source is (rule1)

We observe all frequency pulses as spacially seperated points. That is, like a photon bouncing between mirrors. As it travereses in the direction of motion it covers a distance relative to the ships velocity, and the speed of light. As it travles in the opposing direction of the ship, it must be allowed in logic to move C + C in that direction opposing the ships direction.

 

Thus the cycle of its frequency, will be extremely longly expaned in the direction of travel and extremely shortened in the direction opposed to travel. Equally oppositely so.

 

In effect if we marked each point of each frequency on a 2d like graph we would arrive at points drawn in this manner. For the bouncing photon.

Ship motion --------------------------------------------------------->

photon: |-----o---->|(1) |<-o-|(2) |-----o---->|(3) |<-o-|(4)

 

In this sense you will always recieve the left traveling signal signifcantly close behind the right traveling signal. And the left traveling signal will be followed by a long period of time of the right traveling signal.

 

 

Light does not contain drift velocity from its source. When it is released it travels in a strait line from its origin.

 

A photon moving in this sort of path:

on ship

 

to observer

 

Will not occur, and it is impossible for one to make this claim.

 

This is well observed in experimental appartus, such as (I will have to find a source later) the rotating laser square.

 

By rotating the square light traveling in one direction is altered equally and oppositely to light that travels in the other direction and this shift produces an acurate and observable fringe shift.

 

By no means can you imagine to see the photon follow such a course, for it would in your observation miss the mirror all together.

 

This confusioning possibility would claim that what occurs in one frame is not what occurs in another frame.

 

In the ship the light may observe to bounce off the mirrors, but to the observer the photon would be observed to be left in the dust. Again we have a phantom type mispositioning effect.

 

Which is to state, that you Must exclude all predictable occurances on such a ship, and accept you may only observe what you can observe, and that shall be photons streaming in your direction from the ship.

 

The photon that bounces between the mirrors is uncertain for you to predict its location and velocity.

[swansont]

I will require you show work to convince me otherwise.

 

Really? This is basic calculus.

 

[math] \omega = \frac {d\phi} {dt} [/math]

 

Basic definition of frequency. Time is the phase. All I've done is integrate it.

 

 

So, as one observes a fast moving object, traveling perpendicular, we must accept that when we take that 'snap shot' of the motion, we observe, an image of the past, determined by the distance the source is (rule1)

We observe all frequency pulses as spacially seperated points. That is, like a photon bouncing between mirrors. As it travereses in the direction of motion it covers a distance relative to the ships velocity, and the speed of light. As it travles in the opposing direction of the ship, it must be allowed in logic to move C + C in that direction opposing the ships direction.

 

You mean c + v?

 

Sorry, but that's faulty logic. It contradicts what has been observed to hold.

 

 

Thus the cycle of its frequency, will be extremely longly expaned in the direction of travel and extremely shortened in the direction opposed to travel. Equally oppositely so.

 

In effect if we marked each point of each frequency on a 2d like graph we would arrive at points drawn in this manner. For the bouncing photon.

Ship motion --------------------------------------------------------->

photon: |-----o---->|(1) |<-o-|(2) |-----o---->|(3) |<-o-|(4)

 

In this sense you will always recieve the left traveling signal signifcantly close behind the right traveling signal. And the left traveling signal will be followed by a long period of time of the right traveling signal.

 

 

Light does not contain drift velocity from its source. When it is released it travels in a strait line from its origin.

 

A photon moving in this sort of path:

on ship

 

to observer

 

Will not occur, and it is impossible for one to make this claim.

 

Again, faulty logic. It will occur, just as a ball tossed vertically in one frame (e.g. on a train) will follow a parabolic path if observed in a moving frame (e.g. the ground). It seems more logical to say that it's impossible to claim the opposite, given that it been observed to hold true.

 

This is well observed in experimental appartus, such as (I will have to find a source later) the rotating laser square.

 

By rotating the square light traveling in one direction is altered equally and oppositely to light that travels in the other direction and this shift produces an acurate and observable fringe shift.

 

By no means can you imagine to see the photon follow such a course, for it would in your observation miss the mirror all together.

 

A laser gyroscope, like a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. I can certainly imagine a photon travelling that path, and they exist — they work. So the photon does actiually travel that path. But a rotating system is an accelerating frame, not an inertial one.

 

 

 

This confusioning possibility would claim that what occurs in one frame is not what occurs in another frame.

 

In the ship the light may observe to bounce off the mirrors, but to the observer the photon would be observed to be left in the dust. Again we have a phantom type mispositioning effect.

 

Which is to state, that you Must exclude all predictable occurances on such a ship, and accept you may only observe what you can observe, and that shall be photons streaming in your direction from the ship.

 

The photon that bounces between the mirrors is uncertain for you to predict its location and velocity.

 

Your "mispositioning effect" stems from at least one faulty assumption about how light will behave.

[TriggerGrinn]

Thank you for the response. I would have to agree with the way you explained it as the accepted theory, and it is not that I disbelieve it is possible, I just wonder if there is any other way to explain it.

 

Again, faulty logic. It will occur, just as a ball tossed vertically in one frame (e.g. on a train) will follow a parabolic path if observed in a moving frame (e.g. the ground). It seems more logical to say that it's impossible to claim the opposite, given that it been observed to hold true.

 

Matter is also a wave correct? For example, at extremely low tempeatures matter can stop behaving particle like and act entirely wavelike, correct?

 

As I am able to understand, photons do not drift with their source relative to a rest observer. Although, the matter of course does drift and it is a wave-particle material.

 

I understand experiments show accurate measurements to the SR predictions, but are we certain these small values of change are being properly interpreted. Yes, there is rigourous testing, and alot of talented minds involved.

 

In my opinion, for the following experiment:

 

Haefele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (Proposal); Science Vol. 177 pg 166--170 (1972) (Experiment).

They flew atomic clocks on commercial airliners around the world in both directions, and compared the time elapsed on the airborne clocks with the time elapsed on an earthbound clock (USNO). Their eastbound clock lost 59 ns on the USNO clock; their westbound clock gained 273 ns; these agree with GR predictions to well within their experimental resolution and uncertainties (which total about 25 ns).

 

In terms of testing special relativity, Would it not of been better science to run the test also with a flight simulartor to exclude varibles? By flight simulator I mean a device on the ground that replicates the accelerations and bumps the clock on the actual plane experienced and then compare, the flight clocks the rest ground clock, and the simulator clock.

 

I can understand gravity time dilation having an effect -not that what I think matters, but it would seem to me to be an important addition to include when we consider the very small values of dilations occuring at human capable speeds.

 

Lastly, and back to the topic of matter. I am not well educated on how matter acts when it acts wave-like but would it be consitent to replace the photon's drift, with the matter?

 

I understand light can also be considered matter (wave-particle) duality. Because of this, it is reasonable to say, whats the difference between using light (wave-particle) versus matter (wave-particle) when they are both forms of Electromagnetic forces (correct?)

 

But reason I investigate is because of this simple example;

 

If there is an intertial moving object, and you turn on your observing device while it is motion. At that particular instant the device is turned on, it is viewing an image of a specific "past" position. However, when we include the consideration of consecutive and almost imediate data following behind that first "particular instant", signal after signal (light wave after light wave) we have a high probability of observing where the object is and where it is going. But even still, each wave front of light if you will, comes from, and represents a stationary point/position. In terms of the light being a photon, the photon has travelled in a strait line from its origin, to your position at velocity C. Now relative to the an observer in that fast moving object, the moment it emmits this particular photon of concirn, it has two options. 1) does it drift with the inerital moving object and squiggle away creating distance at a the required velocity to fill in and up to 'C'. Or, 2)does the photon leave from its origin point, and contain no drift velocity, but a direct course towards the observer at rest.

 

According to observer at rest, #2 is the occuring event. In respect to my previous statements.

 

According to observer in motion (which can assume it is at rest) The light/photons should contain all drift with the ship, as if the ship is at rest. Therefore it should claim the #1 option.

 

What I see, is yes this makes sense.

The 'moving' observer will expect to see the photon shoot strait out from the ship like a laser, as any observer would, considering they asume they are at rest, and the drift, or at least the observed drift (motion) of the 'rest' observer will meet that photon like a baseball player running to catch a line drive baseball.(if we allow it to be setup in those circumstances). (when catching the ball it being alike perpendicular moment of relative motion between the two frames, I hope you see how I am invisioning this)

 

The 'rest' observer will expect to see the photon move in a strait line towards himself from its origin, also going C, however on an angle with respect to the direction of the moving body. When he 'catches' the photon, and it with it he observes where the ship(moving frame) is, at that same moment, the ship is claiming he is at perpindicular situation of velocity.

 

Now we repeat the same explaination from this point of perpendicular motion, and we explain that, this next photon, will not be able to travel in a strait line from the ship and reach the rest observer, as the rest observer will drift away. However, when we switch observers, that same photon WILL travel in a strait line from the perpendicular moment and reach the observer.

 

So if you followed thus far, Do we conclude each observers are NOT viewing the same positions in repsect to eachother, and thus all time dilation is obseravtaion ONLY phenomina, affecting neither actual clock OR physics of either considered frame.

[TriggerGrinn]

Rough description of what I'm trying to illustrate in above post.

 

Assume the moving object (grey ball) is moving fast enough to allow for this illustration to occur.

 

The red line represents the path of the photon for the moving observer. (strait away from itself like a laser)

 

The Yellow line represents the path of the photon for the observer at rest (blue ball), and the position it is representing of moving object.

[TriggerGrinn]

At nearly the velocity of C, does this geometry seem correct for the path of one photon?

The faster the source moves at this perpendicular moment, the smaller the angle (theta) gets. Where as, The slower the source moves, the larger the angle opens, when we arrange it so the photon traveling at C from the source meets up with the observer, at a given distance. Say 1 light second.

In this way to develope a basic foundation to work with. The angle has a limitation from some 89 to 33 degrees?

[swansont]

Matter is also a wave correct? For example, at extremely low tempeatures matter can stop behaving particle like and act entirely wavelike, correct?

 

You can observe wave properties, such as interference, yes. Whether you see particle- or wave-like behavior depends on the nature of the interactions

 

As I am able to understand, photons do not drift with their source relative to a rest observer. Although, the matter of course does drift and it is a wave-particle material.

 

I'm not sure what this means

 

In my opinion, for the following experiment:

 

(Hafele-Keating)

 

In terms of testing special relativity, Would it not of been better science to run the test also with a flight simulartor to exclude varibles? By flight simulator I mean a device on the ground that replicates the accelerations and bumps the clock on the actual plane experienced and then compare, the flight clocks the rest ground clock, and the simulator clock.

 

But the accelerations and bumps should have been comparable between the east- and west-bound clocks. Any bias they might introduce would tend to cancel. I suspect that from the prior experience of transporting clocks, the experimenters already knew the effect would be small.