[David Cooper]

Likewise I break things down ''things'' down to the naked science, the bare essentials and rudiment of thought, thus being why it is always best to start at the ''beginning''. Maybe in your own mind you think you are breaking things down, however how far can your mind go before it hits the ''wall'' and can go no further.
For one to understand one must firstly want to listen, there is not many who like to listen but prefer their own voice .

The difference between us is the rigour with which we break things down and the amount of magic that you tolerate to maintain your beliefs that things work in ways which are logically impossible. To be fair to you though, I haven't read much of what you've written over the last year or so and it's possible that you have shifted position on many issues without me noticing, although reading some of your recent posts doesn't inspire me to want to put in the time required to check.

For something to contract there would be ''cracks'' and once returned to normal velocity we could quite clearly observe no ''cracks''.  This is why we have stress levels etc, the sort of science that is real. 
Also The object would deform , more than likely curve like,

Why should there be cracks? If the higher speed of travel leads to the atoms settling closer together in their direction of travel, they'll simply move closer to each other without affecting the integrity of whatever object they collectively form. During acceleration there will be stresses on the object, of course, and these may take the form of stretch if the acceleration is applied from the front (the engine of a train normally pulls the carriages), but if the acceleration is applied to the back (e.g. moving a train backwards, or a boat with a propeller at the back) then it will take the form of compression. If the stresses are too high, the object will break, so you need to keep the G force low throughout the acceleration to avoid this. The length-contraction resulting from moving at higher speed does not apply stresses but results from atoms settling into places that eliminate (or minimise) stress. (Not all stresses can be eliminated because some structures have stresses locked into them, but that's another issue entirely.)

Maybe you are not clever enough to understand me and I am beyond your inability to break down.

I doubt science can understand you yet, but it is not a bad thing for it to have that ambition.

P.s Please feel free to try breakdown my ideas about time in other thread. (you will fail)

I doubt that's necessary - if your ideas about time don't fit the facts, they're already broken, but if they fit the facts, they shouldn't be in conflict with my ideas about time.

[GoC (OP)]

And you will remain stuck with that misunderstanding so long as you fail to do the maths to check whether it hangs together or not. Look at my numbers and ask yourself how a light clock aligned lengthways in a carriage moving at 0.867c can possibly tick half as often as a stationary clock on the platform when it takes light four times as long to complete a round trip within the moving clock. Look at my interactive diagrams of the MMX again and study how fast the red light pulses move across the screen and how far they travel relative to the apparatus. It's only in the second one with length-contraction that the light on the horizontal arm is able to complete its round trip in the same time as the light on the vertical arm to produce a null result. I've put it all in front of your eyes in clear view and there's nothing more I can do for you if you still can't see it.

Ok lets do it my way with light zig zagging between mirrors.

For your example: A^2 + B^2 = C^2 or A^2 = C^2 - B^2 A and C are the distance for light A= 1 B=0.866025 since you chose the half tick rate:
Sq Rt 1^2= 1^2 - 0.866025^2  = SQ. RT. 1 = 1 - 0.749999  =  SQ.RT. 1=1 SQ.RT. 1 -0.75 = SQ. RT. 0.25 = 0.5 vs. 1 for the platform.

Sq Rt 1^2= 1^2 -0.5^2  = SQ. RT. 1 = 1 - 0.749999  =  SQ.RT. 1=1 SQ.RT. 1 -0.25 = SQ. RT. 0.25 = 0.866025 vs. 1 for the platform

This is from where the Lorentz contraction came.  Zig zagging light making right triangles. I get the same answers as you do in Euclidean space.

Is a clock tick rate more non linear than relativity suggests at higher relative velocities? If that's the case than orientation of the clock will change the tick rate above half the speed of light for light clocks. At half the speed of light the two way speed of light compensates to match Lorentz contraction of tick rate in every angle

[David Cooper]

Ok lets do it my way with light zig zagging between mirrors.

No. You're still avoiding doing the maths that you need to do. All you've ever done is the maths for a light clock aligned perpendicular to its direction of travel, and that does not impact on length-contraction at all. I asked you to do the maths for a light clock aligned with its direction of travel where the light has to chase after a mirror that's moving directly away from it without any zigzagging involved. I showed you my numbers for this to see if you would disagree with them, and I then suggested that you should produce numbers in the same way for a different speed of travel such as 0.5c with a light clock aligned in the same direction as it is moving in (so that you can work your way through the idea more independently).

This is from where the Lorentz contraction came.  Zig zagging light making right triangles. I get the same answers as you do in Euclidean space.

That is where time dilation comes from, but not where length-contraction comes from. Length-contraction comes in when you try to get light clocks aligned in the same direction as their direction of travel to conform to the same tick rate as light clocks aligned perpendicular to their direction of travel. The numbers produced at the end of the process happen to be the same, so it turns out that you can always take the length-contraction figure from the time dilation figure calculated from a light clock perpendicular to its direction of travel, but in working out length-contraction from scratch after the MMX produced its null result, Lorentz had to look at how light clocks aligned in the same direction as their direction of travel behave, and you must do the same if you are ever going to understand why length contraction is necessary.

Is a clock tick rate more non linear than relativity suggests at higher relative velocities?

I can't work out what you're trying to ask, but you can easily crunch a few numbers to see how much time dilation and length-contraction applies at higher speeds, and you can plot your own graph of the results. At 0.968c you'll find length-contraction is still only to 1/4 of the rest length, but the dilation and contraction become severe rapidly after that. 0.968c is another good speed to work with when you're exploring length contraction because a light clock in a carriage aligned perpendicular to the carriage will tick once for every four ticks of the platform's clock while a light clock aligned lengthways down the carriage will tick once for every 16 ticks of the platform's clock if it isn't length-contracted to 1/4 of its rest length. Perhaps you'd like to explore that to see how long it takes light from the back of the carriage to reach the mirror at the front. With the light starting from a point 10cm behind the leading mirror, it will have closed in on the mirror by only 0.32cm by the time it's gone 10cm because the mirror has moved 9.68cm. By the time the platform's completed four ticks, the light in the carriage will have closed in on the mirror it's chasing by 8 times 0.32cm, so that's 2.56cm - it's only gone a little bit more than a quarter of the distance it has to cover to reach the mirror, and yet by this time it should have bounced off it and returned to the tail end of the carriage to complete a tick. This maths isn't so scary if you put your mind to it, so give it a go and stop limiting yourself to testing the perpendicular light clock over and over again which will tell you absolutely nothing about why length-contraction is needed to account for the null result of MMX.

[guest39538]

I doubt that's necessary - if your ideas about time don't fit the facts, they're already broken, but if they fit the facts, they shouldn't be in conflict with my ideas about time.

I do not know your ideas of time, however I am quite sure they will be wrong.  Like many you avoid getting into conflict  with me in my threads because the truth is my breakdown of time is precisely accurate and nobody in the world can break my premise for argument. In fact, nobody or no thing in the entire Universe can break my premise. Most science forums call me the anti-science, because i completely destroy science theory.  I never attack facts, I attack the misinterpretations. I challenge you anytime to go over to my thread if you think you are more an expert on time than myself, I assure you though that you are not.

[David Cooper]

I do not know your ideas of time, however I am quite sure they will be wrong.  Like many you avoid getting into conflict  with me in my threads because the truth is my breakdown of time is precisely accurate and nobody in the world can break my premise for argument. In fact, nobody or no thing in the entire Universe can break my premise. Most science forums call me the anti-science, because i completely destroy science theory.  I never attack facts, I attack the misinterpretations. I challenge you anytime to go over to my thread if you think you are more an expert on time than myself, I assure you though that you are not.

I spent a lot of time discussing things with you in the past and found you to be incapable of recognising a whole host of errors in your thinking (no matter how clearly they were shown to you and no matter how many different ways they were shown to you). I'm not prepared to spend any more of my time trying to lead a horse to water when it shows every sign of being incapable of drinking - that is a job for AGI to take on, so I'd rather put the time into building AGI. Then you (and anyone else whose thinking is riddled with errors) will have access to a perfect reasoning machine with the patience of a God, and it will be able to demonstrate everything to you directly on the screen with purpose-build interactive diagrams tailored to your needs in real time, which is something that simply isn't practical even for a team of the most capable humans working on you via a forum. Most importantly, it will be able to follow your own rules to the letter and show you how they conflict with each other and generate a mass of contradiction, so that's the best hope for anything being able to help you to tidy up your thinking. No human is going to want to untangle that mess for you, so you're just going to have to be patient and wait for machine assistance.

[guest39538]

I do not know your ideas of time, however I am quite sure they will be wrong.  Like many you avoid getting into conflict  with me in my threads because the truth is my breakdown of time is precisely accurate and nobody in the world can break my premise for argument. In fact, nobody or no thing in the entire Universe can break my premise. Most science forums call me the anti-science, because i completely destroy science theory.  I never attack facts, I attack the misinterpretations. I challenge you anytime to go over to my thread if you think you are more an expert on time than myself, I assure you though that you are not.

I spent a lot of time discussing things with you in the past and found you to be incapable of recognising a whole host of errors in your thinking (no matter how clearly they were shown to you and no matter how many different ways they were shown to you). I'm not prepared to spend any more of my time trying to lead a horse to water when it shows every sign of being incapable of drinking - that is a job for AGI to take on, so I'd rather put the time into building AGI. Then you (and anyone else whose thinking is riddled with errors) will have access to a perfect reasoning machine with the patience of a God, and it will be able to demonstrate everything to you directly on the screen with purpose-build interactive diagrams tailored to your needs in real time, which is something that simply isn't practical even for a team of the most capable humans working on you via a forum. Most importantly, it will be able to follow your own rules to the letter and show you how they conflict with each other and generate a mass of contradiction, so that's the best hope for anything being able to help you to tidy up your thinking. No human is going to want to untangle that mess for you, so you're just going to have to be patient and wait for machine assistance.

Quite clearly by your arrogant words you certainly think in some way that yourself is smarter than me, not a hope in hell my friend and I happily challenge you to come over to my time thread to see if you can find fault in my argument?

No doubt you will fail to ''show'' and make excuses of pretending I don't understand or in some way I am ''stupid''.

Do you think I am even trying that  hard to think ?  thinking is natural to me and that is something you could not compete with.

Computers are not the answer to anything.

[David Cooper]

Quite clearly by your arrogant words...

And you aren't arrogant? You spend most of your time telling people that they're wrong, but you also fail to back up your claims with rational arguments.

...you certainly think in some way that yourself is smarter than me, not a hope in hell my friend and I happily challenge you to come over to my time thread to see if you can find fault in my argument?

Give me a link to it so that I can look at the first post, and provide a list of any other numbered posts which are essential to your argument so that I don't have to read the whole thread.

No doubt you will fail to ''show'' and make excuses of pretending I don't understand or in some way I am ''stupid''.

What usually happens with you is that you refuse to accept things that are logical requirements, and at that point further discussion becomes pointless.

Do you think I am even trying that  hard to think ?

I doubt you've ever tried hard to think.

thinking is natural to me and that is something you could not compete with.

If one plays chess against a pigeon, it generally knocks all your pieces over and defecates on the board, but that doesn't mean it's won.

Computers are not the answer to anything.

They will certainly be the answer to this.

[guest39538]

Quite clearly by your arrogant words...

And you aren't arrogant? You spend most of your time telling people that they're wrong, but you also fail to back up your claims with rational arguments.

...you certainly think in some way that yourself is smarter than me, not a hope in hell my friend and I happily challenge you to come over to my time thread to see if you can find fault in my argument?

Give me a link to it so that I can look at the first post, and provide a list of any other numbered posts which are essential to your argument so that I don't have to read the whole thread.

No doubt you will fail to ''show'' and make excuses of pretending I don't understand or in some way I am ''stupid''.

What usually happens with you is that you refuse to accept things that are logical requirements, and at that point further discussion becomes pointless.

Do you think I am even trying that  hard to think ?

I doubt you've ever tried hard to think.

thinking is natural to me and that is something you could not compete with.

If one plays chess against a pigeon, it generally knocks all your pieces over and defecates on the board, but that doesn't mean it's won.

Computers are not the answer to anything.

They will certainly be the answer to this.

Ok, I only need you to read the first post and premise for argument.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69890.0

[David Cooper]

Box,

Times passes by for any matter in the Universe, but how fast does time pass matter by?  One could set a rate and use an equivalent to record the measurement of time!  However, one would be by doing this, setting the speed of time by there own equivalents speed/rate.

It is interesting that any measurement after 0 becomes instantaneous history no matter what the speed/rate of equivalent ''time''measurement  being used.   This logic alone overwhelmingly over ruling such premise as time dilation, yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen.

Is that it? What does it mean? The present is momentary and moves on such that what was present becomes past? Time passes at the rate time passes? Nothing revolutionary there - it fits with LET.

added - time is the memory of passed events.

The memory of passed events cannot be substituted for time in any simulation, so that bit's clearly wrong.

Next post:-

I prefer the measurement of past time to be that of a mechanical and constant nature, a normal mechanical clock  does  the job.

You run into problems with that when you move a clock quickly or put it in a gravity well - whenever it runs slow, you're failing to count all the time that's gone by.

It is not the question of how we measure time though, it is the importance of understanding time and the realisation of that there is no time dilation, time travel or likes.

There clearly is time dilation, but the issue with it is the interpretation of what's going on. Some say that when one clock runs faster than another, they've both recorded true time without either of them really running slow (SR), but others say that both are governed by absolute time and that at least one of them ran slow (LET).

No past or future and only the present state of matter which ''decays'' in space.

The past was and the future will be, but they are not in the present (LET). [SR has other ways of looking things in which all times can be eternal.]

Simultaneity is the stuff of fairy tales and easy to prove incorrect.

Simultaneity is real. Without it you can have no interactions between things as they can't meet up in the same place and time. You also lose the ability to have a "while".

One visual universe whole that visual matter exists in a present state, we measure change of the state of matter, but all the measurements are past measurements,  ''time'' passes by at an instant and infinite speed for all matter.

Nothing innovative there.

Next post:-

Although matter decays at different rates taking into account ''time'' dilation, the rate of true time is constant, decay does not mean different ages.   The twin with the relative slower decay clock, does not age less, they just decay less. and last longer in ''time''. The period of time for both twins is synchronous, but the travelling twin who has decayed less, lives longer.

How can it be synchronous when you've denied simultaneity? But what you've described here is consistent with LET's position which is that slowed clocks simply run slow and decay less because there is less opportunity for them to change. Where do I have to look to find your revolutionary idea that doesn't date back hundreds of years?

[guest39538]

Box,

It is interesting that any measurement after 0 becomes instantaneous history no matter what the speed/rate of equivalent ''time''measurement  being used.   This logic alone overwhelmingly over ruling such premise as time dilation, yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen.

Is that it? What does it mean? The present is momentary and moves on such that what was present becomes past? Time passes at the rate time passes? Nothing revolutionary there - it fits with LET.

You should of really posted this in my thread rather than the high jack of Goc's thread.  Quite clearly your ability to understand is difficult for you. If you was as smart as you think you are , you would understand what it meant without further explanation from me.
Maybe you should read the rest of my thread! you may find it gets really interesting when I show science how naive they have been for the past 100 years or so .
However I will leave you with a relative question that the answer should then allow you to understand what ''that'' means.

This a question about two observers, one observer is on Earth and one observer  is on planet x.

Both observers have to devise a way to measure time, both observers decide that 1 rotation of their relative planet would be equal too one day. Planet Earth's rotation speed is differential to that of planet x.

Why can't the observers devise time using this method?











 

[David Cooper]

You should of really posted this in my thread rather than the high jack of Goc's thread.

You think I hijacked his thread? You don't think it might have been you that did that? If I'd posted it in your thread without reading the whole thread, that would have been disrespecting everyone else who'd posted there as they might already have said the same things I was going to say, and all of them would have been pestered by an email about it too. The path of minimum disruption was to deal with you here.

Quite clearly your ability to understand is difficult for you. If you was as smart as you think you are , you would understand what it meant without further explanation from me.

I can't read your mind, so when you describe something in a confused manner, I'd prefer it if you'd rephrase it clearly instead so that it's clear what you think you're applying logic to, and how you imagine you're applying logic to it.

Maybe you should read the rest of my thread! you may find it gets really interesting when I show science how naive they have been for the past 100 years or so .

I know exactly how naive they've been, but I've also seen more than enough evidence that you aren't up to speed with things either.

However I will leave you with a relative question that the answer should then allow you to understand what ''that'' means.

This a question about two observers, one observer is on Earth and one observer  is on planet x.

Both observers have to devise a way to measure time, both observers decide that 1 rotation of their relative planet would be equal too one day. Planet Earth's rotation speed is differential to that of planet x.

Why can't the observers devise time using this method?

They have both created a measure of time (although it's inaccurate as the rotation speed can vary), and it's possible to convert from one to the other. All we can ever do though is create measures of time without getting any real handle on how fast time runs - it simply runs at whatever speed it runs at (and our perception of how fast it runs could be very different from that of other species and aliens). That appears to fit with what you said, but the bit I couldn't make sense of is how you get from there to denying time dilation. You didn't provide an interpretation of what you mean by time dilation either - in SR, time dilation is a kind of voodoo in which things can take shortcuts into the future, but in LET time dilation simply means that some clocks run slow due to their depth in a gravity well or their speed of travel and fail to record absolute time as a result, which I suspect fits with your position.

I'm intrigued by the "yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen" part though - I don't know who you were referring to there.

[guest39538]

They have both created a measure of time (although it's inaccurate as the rotation speed can vary), and it's possible to convert from one to the other. All we can ever do though is create measures of time without getting any real handle on how fast time runs

Yes exactly that and if you understand your own words you should understand the difference between a time dilation and a timing dilation?
If you do understand then you should realise why there is no time dilation.   The mind I was referring to is my own.

[David Cooper]

They have both created a measure of time (although it's inaccurate as the rotation speed can vary), and it's possible to convert from one to the other. All we can ever do though is create measures of time without getting any real handle on how fast time runs

Yes exactly that and if you understand your own words you should understand the difference between a time dilation and a timing dilation?
If you do understand then you should realise why there is no time dilation.

If you read carefully and understood everything, you'd have worked out that you are not the only person who doesn't consider "time dilation" to be a dilation of time. Lorentz never took it as that, but I think he used the term, although he may merely have done so when speaking the same language as Einstein. "Time dilation" is certainly not a good term to use for LET where it is merely a clock running slow.

The mind I was referring to is my own.

Then why do you make mistakes all over the place and fail to acknowledge or correct them? I told you when you first posted on this forum that it looked as if you ought to be in the LET camp, but you didn't realise that and you still don't. What is so special about your position and your mind? You denied the role of a fabric of space and insisted that space was nothing, which led to the problem that you had a "nothing" with properties that enabled it to impose three space dimensions on its content, to enable separation of objects by distance, and to impose a speed limit on light through your "nothing". Have you realised yet that your "nothing" must be something?

[GoC (OP)]

David,

Sorry work interferes with pleasure sometimes. I enjoy our discussions with the knowledge you and I are not all knowing.
Lets get back to the 0.866025 speed of light. I may have misunderstood Einstein's Relativity with how it handles time as a dimension. I understand time as the energy of motion with energy being of space and not mass. So c = spin particle energy of a stationary existence causing the propagation of a wave on the grid spectrum with the resistance caused by mass, we call a photon. Of course the photon and rotating electron motion being c. Straight vector c for the photon and a rotating vector motion c for the electron.

Math has to follow a theory to be correct but math can also follow a theory that is incorrect.

Lets try to train (excuse the pun) me up a bit. This is titled mechanical relativity. What causes mass to contract with velocity in space?

[David Cooper]

Lets get back to the 0.866025 speed of light. I may have misunderstood Einstein's Relativity with how it handles time as a dimension. I understand time as the energy of motion with energy being of space and not mass. So c = spin particle energy of a stationary existence causing the propagation of a wave on the grid spectrum with the resistance caused by mass, we call a photon. Of course the photon and rotating electron motion being c. Straight vector c for the photon and a rotating vector motion c for the electron.

That sounds viable in part, but I wouldn't want to equate it with time. We know that matter can decay into electromagnetic radiation, so it's essentially the same stuff tied up in knots. As radiation it is free to move at maximum speed, and that speed of movement freezes its functionality. When tied up in matter, it's hard to know what it's all doing in there. Some of it may be racing about at c, and maybe all of it is. Any particle that is spread out, like an electron, is complex, having different parts in different locations, and something must be organising and maintaining its shape. That maintenance must involve communications operating continually, and they most likely operate at c. If we can measure the shape of an electron with great precision (and I'm fairly sure that I've heard that we can), length-contraction must operate on it - if it didn't, we'd detect it changing relative to our measuring equipment depending on the time of day and the month when we measure it in (due to the Earth's rotation and orbit round the sun). I'm not aware of any science that can explain the functionality of an electron in terms of the behaviour of smaller components and interactions between those components, so I suspect we only have theories about what might be going on inside them, and I don't know how deep those theories go.

But what is time? I think of it as opportunity for movement (and thereby opportunity for change). A photon is able to move and time governs its movement. A particle is able to age, and that ageing depends on internal movement which is again governed by time. But time is not energy. Light is energy (or one type of transmission of energy). Matter is energy running on the spot (but with complications, such as having mass, although light too has mass in some form, adding that mass to any object that absorbs it). Time is not made of light or matter, or indeed of energy - it appears to be something distinct and fundamental that can't be broken down into other things.

Lets try to train (excuse the pun) me up a bit. This is titled mechanical relativity. What causes mass to contract with velocity in space?

It isn't mass that's contracting, but matter, and it's spread-out matter rather than a point particle. Without knowing what's going on in the components of this matter, we can only speculate about the mechanisms by which it functions. There is likely a smallest component of energy, and even with photons we're not seeing an indivisible object - they can be high-energy photons like gamma rays or low energy ones like radio waves, and we haven't yet found a smallest component of energy out of which they're built in multiples. Then there's the question as to whether the light is a thing in its own right or if it's just the movement of a space fabric as energy moves through it. There's too much that's unknown.

What we can say about the mechanism of length-contraction though is that it makes sense if you work at a higher level with things which communicate with each other and coordinate their relative positions. If we work with rockets, for example, we can have four of them forming a square and sitting in space. If we then decide to move them somewhere, they have to accelerate, and if they start this at the same moment by the time of the frame of reference in which they are stationary, they will soon find that they appear to be too far apart in their direction of travel, though their separation perpendicular to that appears unchanged. If they want to continue to act as a square (by their own measurements), they must settle closer together in their direction of travel. If, for example, we have rockets A and B in the lead with C and D following them such that they're forming a square with A neither leading nor trailing B (and with C following B's path while D follows A), A and D will need to move closer together, as will B and C. We can use pairs of these rockets as the ends of light clocks and ping light or radio signals back and forth between them, and if we do that, it's only by length-contracting the square that the timings will be the same sideways across the square as lengthways. So, length-contraction makes sense for rockets where coordination is involved in maintaining their separation.

Are components of matter also comparing communication distances and making adjustments to keep them equal in different directions? I doubt it, but whatever they're doing, it has the same effect.

What we need to look at is a small object orbiting a massive one in what would be a circular orbit if the massive object is considered to be stationary. If we take the massive object as moving at 0.867c though, the orbit of the small object moving around it will turn into an ellipse, and the massive object will still be at the centre of that ellipse rather than at one of the foci. This orbit must be compatible with the normal rules about how gravity acts on things, and within that must lie the explanation for length-contraction, although you will need to take into account the change in mass of the orbiting object due to "relativistic mass" - it's that extra factor that makes the key difference in the calculations. For example, if the orbiting object is going round the massive object at 0.2c, its speed through space can never hit the maximum of 1.0867c that a naive interpretation would predict for it. The speed of the orbiting object will actually change a lot as it goes round the massive object (and I mean its speed relative to that massive object), and whenever its speed reduces, its relativistic mass has to go up instead to compensate. This same thing would be happening within atoms for any components that are moving forwards or backwards relative to the direction of travel of the atom, affecting their range by converting some of their speed into relativistic mass. That is the fundamental explanation of length-contraction.

[guest39538]

They have both created a measure of time (although it's inaccurate as the rotation speed can vary), and it's possible to convert from one to the other. All we can ever do though is create measures of time without getting any real handle on how fast time runs

Yes exactly that and if you understand your own words you should understand the difference between a time dilation and a timing dilation?
If you do understand then you should realise why there is no time dilation.

If you read carefully and understood everything, you'd have worked out that you are not the only person who doesn't consider "time dilation" to be a dilation of time. Lorentz never took it as that, but I think he used the term, although he may merely have done so when speaking the same language as Einstein. "Time dilation" is certainly not a good term to use for LET where it is merely a clock running slow.

The mind I was referring to is my own.

Then why do you make mistakes all over the place and fail to acknowledge or correct them? I told you when you first posted on this forum that it looked as if you ought to be in the LET camp, but you didn't realise that and you still don't. What is so special about your position and your mind? You denied the role of a fabric of space and insisted that space was nothing, which led to the problem that you had a "nothing" with properties that enabled it to impose three space dimensions on its content, to enable separation of objects by distance, and to impose a speed limit on light through your "nothing". Have you realised yet that your "nothing" must be something?

I am afraid that nothing still means nothing, for something to exist, it has to have nothing to exist in.
You keep mentioning LET, however I do not think you understand this is far more than just time dilation, they do not say on places I am the ''anti-science'' for no reason. I do not think you understand that my notions ''destroy'' most theories because I ''destroy'' the very mechanical relativity GOC is talking about that you presently use by equating our present ''speed'' of time to the rotational speed of the Earth .
Quite clearly you do not understand how I have ''stuffed'' science .

[David Cooper]

I am afraid that nothing still means nothing, for something to exist, it has to have nothing to exist in.

There is no reason why there should be any nothing at all, and all the objects that we think of as existing in space may actually be that fabric of space, just as waves on water are the water. What we do know of space though is that it imposes order on its content. What is it that makes all objects in our universe three dimensional, and what stops them rotating into other dimensions within a space that doesn't impose a three space-dimension limit on them? 2D objects in our 3D space would drift out of alignment with each other and seem to disappear for other 2D objects, and 3D objects in a space that doesn't have a 3D structure would drift out of alignment with other 3D objects in the same way as they rotate into other dimensions and appear to vanish. Light wouldn't spread out according to the inverse square law because it wouldn't be forced to remain within a 3D space in a space that doesn't impose that restriction upon it. Two objects that are supposedly a metre apart would actually be touching each other if there was literally nothing between them. Space is not nothing, and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply not in the game.

You keep mentioning LET, however I do not think you understand this is far more than just time dilation, ...

You have a model with magic in it because it gives properties to nothing that nothing cannot have. Whatever you build upon that failure is almost certainly going to be worthless.

...they do not say on places I am the ''anti-science'' for no reason.

That is more than evident.

I do not think you understand that my notions ''destroy'' most theories because I ''destroy'' the very mechanical relativity GOC is talking about that you presently use by equating our present ''speed'' of time to the rotational speed of the Earth .

Magical thinking doesn't destroy any theories, but should actually allow you to see them all as valid by fixing any faults they might have with more magic. You also have enormous comprehension difficulties, in this case leading you to state incorrectly that I've equated our present "speed" of time to the rotational speed of the Earth. There are many different things that measure time, but they all measure apparent time rather than absolute time, slowed by any gravitational interactions and by their speed of travel through the fabric of space (as well as the fabric of space's possible movement/expansion within another fabric [of which it may again be a part rather than content]).

Quite clearly you do not understand how I have ''stuffed'' science .

All you've done is put yourself in an irrational position and fool yourself into thinking you're the one who's got it all right, but when your "nothing" has properties and thereby reveals itself to be something rather than nothing, everyone can see your position as ridiculous (unless they have the same ridiculous beliefs, and some SR fans aren't that far away from your position, failing to understand that their beloved Spacetime is also a fabric (aether).

[David Cooper]

More on length contraction:-

Imagine you're in a rocket and you want to fly it in a square path around a stationary central point. You can do this by accelerating from stationary in a moment using a blast of power, then wait until you're in the right place to put in a 90 degree turn. The turn can be made by stopping for a moment with a blast of power, then sending another blast sideways. It's easy to see how the square path can be completed.

Now do the same thing again, but this time with a central point that's moving at 0.867c. You start by moving at the same speed as that central point and place yourself the right distance relative to it to appear to be on a corner of the square you want to plot out with your movement. You follow exactly the same procedure as in the previous paragraph, and the resulting shape looks square to you, but to a stationary observer, it's length-contracted. If we try to make the rocket speed 0.867c too (relative to the central point) while it's moving along the edges of our square, its actual speed will vary considerably from the point of view of a stationary observer, so if two of the edges of the square are aligned in the same direction as the direction the central point is moving in, the rocket will actually be stationary when it's plotting out one edge of the square and will be moving at 0.99c when plotting out the opposite edge. It will take much longer to plot out the opposite edge too, but it will take the same length of time by the rocket's own clock.

That is length-contraction in action, the square shape  being halved in the direction of travel at this speed. If we were to control things by sending out signals from the central point to tell the rocket when to change course, it would plot out exactly the same length-contracted shape because of the communication delays, so a massive object with a small object orbiting it will produce the same contraction on its orbit too, and this will apply to anything else with components which move relative to each other as part of its functionality. Einstein criticised length-contraction in LET as ad hoc, but he was wrong to do so - it is something that happens in the full range of cases and for fully rational reasons.

[jeffreyH]

SR was chosen over LET as a matter of convention. There is no reason why LET shouldn't replace SR.

[GoC (OP)]

David,

Once again lets look at a situation to determine if you believe light can go 90 degrees from a vector direction. I do not believe that is possible. So,

Two ships going the speed of light ( can't happen but just for grins and giggles) shoot out light perpendicular (you can't create light at the speed of light but humor me). Could one ship view the light from the other.
The real answer is no but you may have another view.

Now at 0.999 c perpendicular view?
0.867 c perpendicular view?

I do not believe any relativistic speed can have a perpendicular view. Light being independent of the source and simultaneity of relativity.

What is your understanding?