[jeffreyH]

Particle lifetimes are an active area of study. Both in the atmosphere and in particle accelerators.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles
I haven't kept up to date though.

[GoC (OP)]

David

https://books.google.com/books?id=KYpU4AWwJ3UC&pg=RA1-PA594&lpg=RA1-PA594&dq=einstein's+papers+all+views+are+equally+valid&source=bl&ots=GvA87zhiMD&sig=c89-jM4jQPRFIcGGrN4BEB_nuhY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiS94blraXVAhUCdz4KHeqiCmsQ6AEIOTAE#v=onepage&q=einstein's%20papers%20all%20views%20are%20equally%20valid&f=false

[David Cooper]

Reading Einstein's original papers doesn't give you a proper picture of what he ended up pushing as a model. Professional physicists have even been banned from leading physics forums for arguing about what SR is based on his original papers.

I have looked at all the models that Einstein used and shown that the only rational models are LET and versions of 4D Spacetime models with added Newtonian time and a preferred frame. If you want to use a 3D version of mode 2 for your argument, you run into the problem of events unhappening and your model is thus shown not to be running a mechanism equivalent to that of the real universe. If you want to use a 4D version of mode 2, the same applies. Add an absolute frame though (turning them into mode 3), and both become viable, one of them then being LET.

[GoC (OP)]

I use an energy model of c occupying space and moving electrons by distance. Time is meaningless in that case. Energy c is what allows motion and motion allows the laws of nature. Time is caused by motion c.

Your points avoid what makes the electron move in the first place so you might as well be arguing with the wind.

[guest4091]

So Einstein said all frames are equally valid. This also means no frame is valid because of relativity of simultaneity.

Valid means acceptable, based on sound reasoning. A word cannot have a meaning and it's opposite, that's nonsensical. He said any inertial frame can serve as a reference. Each frame has it's own relative simultaneity.

[guest4091]

David Cooper;

#433
A change of frame is a major reworking of reality, producing a new description of what's happening that's a major distortion of the truth, telling lies about the amount of length-contraction that's applied to different objects and about the speed of light relative to them.

That's magic! Changing frames does not alter the universe, unless you are talking Harry Potter physics, which only requires to know the secret hand shake.
Just as the 10 observers have a different perspective of the house, switching from one position to another does not affect the house. Switching from different camera positions does not affect the sporting event.
In the SR train scenario, if the passenger dropped a stone, it falls vertically to the floor.  The bystander outside would see the stone fall in an arc to the floor (assume a large window). How can each see a different path for the same stone? You would call this a contradiction, SR calls it relative perceptions. Maybe you don't understand perception. It's what the mind thinks it sees, mental images formed from sensory input, and just as real as anything outside the mind. It explains illusions and drug induced hallucinations, and SR effects. In the train example, the trajectories are real perceived  images for the observers, but are not physically real outside the mind. Example; planets have one position for each observation (and corresponding clock event), and when plotted over time, produce an historical record of positions, labeled as an orbit. No one has ever looked into space and seen an orbit. They are not physically real except as lines on paper.
We can move over to your simulations which you claim are dynamic in showing the mechanism for formation of the universe, which SR does not.
First, there is no motion on a computer screen, it's just a sequence of pixels turned on and off, like the sequence of still images projected on the movie screen. The mind compares the current image with the previous one and melds them into a continuous  stream, another case of perception. In this sense a graph or spacetime drawing is no different, being a history of positions. The relations of moving objects cannot be determined from one position, but requires multiple positions over a period of time.

#433
In frame A, light moves relative to object B at speeds other than c. It is only when we switch to frame B that light is asserted to be moving relative to object B at c in all directions, but such a change in what the light's doing relative to the objects should not be allowed.

In a space-time drawing, the ct (vertical) axis is the time of the reference frame A, thus defining it as a rest frame, and exempt from motion induced effects td and lc. A would measure the speed of light as c. A would also measure light speed relative to B in the x direction as cv, with B speed=v. Since B is moving it experiences motion induced effects td and lc. The complementary effects of td and lc scale x' and t' for B by the gamma factor g. Therefore if in A, x/t=c, then in B, x'/t'=c.
This is also why any frame can be used as a reference, and the descriptions depend only on the relative speed of the second frame.
Newton was in error when stating there is an absolute state of rest and motion.
'Rest' is a special case of motion, when two objects have the same velocity.
That's why the first state can't be found.

Show an instance of event meshing failure, or an event unhappening.

[David Cooper]

I use an energy model of c occupying space and moving electrons by distance. Time is meaningless in that case. Energy c is what allows motion and motion allows the laws of nature. Time is caused by motion c.

You clearly have a theory of some kind which may well be worthy of discussion, but it doesn't appear to be SR. It would be interesting to know though if you can actually run a simulation of your model. Perhaps you'd like some help in writing a simulation of it? That would be the ultimate test, because any theory that could match up to the real universe must be possible to run in a simulation and demonstrate that it runs by the rules of the model (without cheating by breaking them). That's what I ask the SR folks to do, and because they refuse to do so, I take their model and run it for them, thereby showing up the failure of the model to do what it says on the tin. I can do that for your model to, and if it works, it will be better than SR.

Your points avoid what makes the electron move in the first place so you might as well be arguing with the wind.

It certainly does feel like that.

[David Cooper]

#433
A change of frame is a major reworking of reality, producing a new description of what's happening that's a major distortion of the truth, telling lies about the amount of length-contraction that's applied to different objects and about the speed of light relative to them.

That's magic! Changing frames does not alter the universe, unless you are talking Harry Potter physics, which only requires to know the secret hand shake.

That's the whole point - changing frame must not make events unhappen, so when two observers at the same place but moving relative to each other theorise about the state of reality elsewhere, they produce conflicting accounts. An event elsewhere, one of them calculates will have happened while the other will calculate has not yet happened, so one of those accounts is wrong. For both accounts to be right, the event must both have happened already and not happened yet, so you're making a magical universe out of one that has a much simpler explanation which doesn't need that magic shoehorned into it.

In the SR train scenario, if the passenger dropped a stone, it falls vertically to the floor.  The bystander outside would see the stone fall in an arc to the floor (assume a large window). How can each see a different path for the same stone? You would call this a contradiction, SR calls it relative perceptions.

It is perfectly reasonable for them to generate different accounts of what they've seen happen based on the bias of their own rest frame, but their accounts certainly do contradict each other, so it cannot be the case that both accounts are true. If the observer on the train claims that the stone fell straight downwards, he is either making a claim that goes beyond his competence (because he understands nothing of relativity) or he is simply missing out the condition: "if the frame in which I was at rest was stationary" and assumes that it will automatically be understood without having to state it.

Maybe you don't understand perception. It's what the mind thinks it sees, mental images formed from sensory input, and just as real as anything outside the mind. It explains illusions and drug induced hallucinations, and SR effects. In the train example, the trajectories are real perceived  images for the observers, but are not physically real outside the mind. Example; planets have one position for each observation (and corresponding clock event), and when plotted over time, produce an historical record of positions, labeled as an orbit. No one has ever looked into space and seen an orbit. They are not physically real except as lines on paper.

There is no problem with understanding how perception comes into things. The issue is that the universe has to run on a rational mechanism and if it uses one frame of reference to coordinate the unfolding of events, that model has a preferred frame. If it uses an infinite number of preferred frames to try to get round that, it is then carrying out an infinite number of different simulations which will unfold the events in different ways so that something that's happened in one hasn't happened yet in another, while in another of those simulations the reverse is true. Is that a simpler model than a model with a preferred frame? No. The simpler model does one single simulation in which events are not in a state of happened and unhappened at the same time, and it doesn't make events unhappen after they've happened. The only SR model that can handle this is model zero, and it has to exist by magic without ever having been generated in past-to-future order.

We can move over to your simulations which you claim are dynamic in showing the mechanism for formation of the universe, which SR does not.
First, there is no motion on a computer screen, it's just a sequence of pixels turned on and off, like the sequence of still images projected on the movie screen. The mind compares the current image with the previous one and melds them into a continuous  stream, another case of perception. In this sense a graph or spacetime drawing is no different, being a history of positions. The relations of moving objects cannot be determined from one position, but requires multiple positions over a period of time.

The issue with whether a simulation is compatible with the real universe is whether what it does maps to what the universe could be doing. The simulation and the universe both have to coordinate the unfolding of events in order of causation without unhappening any events once they've happened, and to achieve this it has to pick a frame of reference to use in controlling that coordination and stick with it. The only way to avoid sticking to a single frame for this is to use the eternal static block universe and not bother to account rationally for its generation, because then you can change frame without changing the content of the block beyond asserting a different slant for it - when you change frame you are not making anything happen or unhappen, and when you "move" to a future time, you don't make anything new happen either as the future of the block is already in place with all the events magically pre-happened (without ever having happened).

In a space-time drawing, the ct (vertical) axis is the time of the reference frame A, thus defining it as a rest frame, and exempt from motion induced effects td and lc. A would measure the speed of light as c. A would also measure light speed relative to B in the x direction as cv, with B speed=v. Since B is moving it experiences motion induced effects td and lc. The complementary effects of td and lc scale x' and t' for B by the gamma factor g. Therefore if in A, x/t=c, then in B, x'/t'=c.

All you're doing there is converting to a frame B measurement of the speed of light relative to B. The frame A measurement of the speed of light relative to B is not c. A change of frame is a switch to a new theory of the underlying reality and is in conflict with the original theory of reality. They are incompatible rivals, and that shows up when you see the unhappening of events in model 2.

Newton was in error when stating there is an absolute state of rest and motion.

You have no justification for asserting that as you don't have a model that works without a preferred frame (unless it's a magical eternal block which was never created in order of causation).

Show an instance of event meshing failure, or an event unhappening.

I refer you to modes 1 and 2 of my interactive diagram. Show me a model that solves those problems without introducing a preferred frame and turning into mode 3.

[GoC (OP)]

Phyti

zwitterion

David

I can imagine an orbit.

I take their model and run it for them, thereby showing up the failure of the model to do what it says on the tin. I can do that for your model to, and if it works, it will be better than SR.

I can run my model in my head but it is probably to difficult in a simulation. My model is Dark Mass as the physical component and spin c as the energy component. Aether style with a spin c. The 2d plates have opposing spins like gears. The next  2d plate is the same but 90 degree offset. All spins are complimentary. This moves the electron in a helix.

Gravity- Take the proton and electron within that matrix and expand the dark mass particles by the inverse square of the distance away from the proton. The electron moves away from the proton (electrons take turn coming out of the proton) until the dark mass particles contract (by distance from the proton) and the resistance causes the electron to curve back to the proton where energy is less dense. This is the basis of mechanical gravity GR. The more mass the greater the dilation of energy. This increases the distance electrons can travel through space and slows the clock tick rate.

Magnetism- The rotation of electrons in electromagnets causes the dark matter spin to be concentrated. This transfers to other open faced molecules to continue the spin. The spin is clockwise in the North and clockwise out the south. Mirrored spins oppose SS and NN.

Protons and Neutrons are made up of positrons and negatrons in a stable pattern of flow within the Proton and Neutron. Break that pattern of flow and macro matter reverts back to dark mass with spin. Fusion causes dark mass to become macro mass in suns

I have allot more like weak and strong force but that flows into chemistry.

[guest4091]

That's the whole point - changing frame must not make events unhappen, so when two observers at the same place but moving relative to each other theorise about the state of reality elsewhere, they produce conflicting accounts

Changing frames does not make events unhappen. Where did this idea come from? It is not part of LET or SR. It must be your own theory.

[David Cooper]

I can run my model in my head but it is probably to difficult in a simulation.

If you can run it in your head, you are already doing it in a simulation. You're right though that it will take a lot of work to translate it into a simulation on a computer due to the complexities of all that mechanical rotating stuff you've got going on. However, it should be easy enough just to do a simulation of the parts of it that relate directly to relativity so that you can show how your model can overcome the problems that none of the SR models can. The starting point for building it is to simulate the action for a single location as things there interact in a series of cause-and-effect interactions. If your model can handle that, then we have got something to build upon. If it can't, then it's already dead in the water.

[David Cooper]

Changing frames does not make events unhappen. Where did this idea come from? It is not part of LET or SR. It must be your own theory.

If you run a mode 2 simulation, events unhappen (while others happen) whenever you change the frame of reference that's being used to coordinate events - this is unavoidable whenever you run any SR designed to prevent event-meshing failures. This isn't something I've made up, but something that necessarily applies to SR whenever you run the model.

[xersanozgen]

  METHOD                       Reference role                                                            Relative role                   

Classic Mechanics        Local frame or an object                                          Test object

The theory SR                A Moving body (source, local place, observer)     Light ( an identified Photon)

LCS  concept                  Most external frame (Space/LCS/Lİght)                 Moving body/ an object

7630

[guest4091]

David Cooper;

I ran modes 1-3. Modes 2 and 3 are the equivalent as are the space-time diagrams and agree with SR.. You swap A and B, and change the sign of v.
Mode 1 is unreal, scrambled fantasy. total distortion. Refer to the graphic which is based on planets Blue and Green separating at .866c and a rocket (red) launching at t=1 at .99c from each planet to intercept the other planet. The four events of interest are circled.
In mode 1, with frame A the reference, times should be A-times. Both rockets launch at 250 (1 yr) and arrive at intercept location at 490 (2 yr).  Both B and G arrive at intercept location at 960 (3.8 yr). Coordinates from the graphic are noted as (x, t).
Rocket B2G moves from (0, 1) to (6.92, 2), at 6.9c.
Rocket G2B moves from (1.72, 1) to (0, 2), at 1.7c.
B moved from (0, 0) to (0, 3.80) at 0.
G moved from (0, 0) to (7.96, 3.80) at 2.1c.
1. These are violations of the faster than light restriction.
2. There is no acceleration in 'uniform constant inertial motion'.
B and G are coincident at the origin, then G disappears from B's view on the x axis.
Both rockets disappear from the planet's view.
3. Those are violations of the energy conservation law.

but objects which are moving rapidly through space will have to move upwards more rapidly than slower objects if they are taking shortcuts into the future.

Based on what?


https://app.box.com/s/byp1eshk8o7v63ww46rg7nf4cmrctwwr

[David Cooper]

Mode 1 is unreal, scrambled fantasy. total distortion.

Mode 1 represents imagined happenings in the eternal static block universe model where all things follow their paths with their clocks ticking unslowed. If you imagine the moving dots leaving a trail behind them and then imagine those trails are already in place from the start, the way the dots move represents the way that one important subset of Einsteinists assert that they move through the block. The problem with that philosophy is clear though if you try to apply it to the construction of the block (which they never attempt to do for unsound ideological reasons) - the result is event-meshing failures during the construction, but they are ironed out over the course of a Newtonian time (that isn't specified in the model but which must be brought in to generate the block) with history changing at individual Spacetime locations. Model 1 could also represent a universe that isn't a block universe, but it would lead to things disappearing out of sight as soon as they move relative to each other, so that variant of model 1 clearly doesn't represent our universe.

Refer to the graphic which is based on planets Blue and Green separating at .866c and a rocket (red) launching at t=1 at .99c from each planet to intercept the other planet. The four events of interest are circled.

I can't see why you have one of the rockets turn round on the t=2.00 line and not get back to the centre line at the t=4.00 line as it should. It is doing the same speed relative to its home planet on both legs and cannot get back to the centre at the t=3.75 line.

In mode 1, with frame A the reference, times should be A-times. Both rockets launch at 250 (1 yr) and arrive at intercept location at 490 (2 yr).  Both B and G arrive at intercept location at 960 (3.8 yr).

Ah - I see I made an error with the 250 figure (which I only added into the page relatively recently). It should say 240 units is a year rather than 250. I'll correct that on the next edit. The 240 was just an arbitrary amount chosen to make the simulation run not too slow and not too fast, so it has no real significance beyond that.

Coordinates from the graphic are noted as (x, t).
Rocket B2G moves from (0, 1) to (6.92, 2), at 6.9c.
Rocket G2B moves from (1.72, 1) to (0, 2), at 1.7c.
B moved from (0, 0) to (0, 3.80) at 0.
G moved from (0, 0) to (7.96, 3.80) at 2.1c.
1. These are violations of the faster than light restriction.

You're reading this mode wrongly. The speeds of travel observed by any content of the universe would see things as if all objects are at the same height on the diagram. Each object leaves a solid trail of itself behind it which the other objects see at the same altitude as themselves. The objects moving up the screen at what appear to be superluminal speeds don't perceive it that way either - their clocks are ticking at one second per second and the paths they're following have been length-contracted such that they are doing nothing out of the ordinary. In the same way, light travels up the screen at infinite speed in this mode because it travels all distances in zero time while contracting them to zero distance. This mode shows objects taking shortcuts into the future and you are seeing them making those gains under a Newtonian time that's had to been added to the model to allow these shortcuts to be taken. If you think it doesn't all add up, it's because the model is pushing SR beyond the limits of its specifications in order to enable some of its dogma to play out in the construction phase of a block universe. If you don't like it, that's fine by me because the problem is with SR and not with my fair representation of how it would have to run if it could run. Incidentally, mode 1 also represents the GR model where it too depends on things taking shortcuts into the future rather than having time run slow in a gravity well.

2. There is no acceleration in 'uniform constant inertial motion'.

None is shown in any of the modes.

B and G are coincident at the origin, then G disappears from B's view on the x axis.
Both rockets disappear from the planet's view.

They leave lasting versions of themselves at all locations they've been in, so those continue to be seen. It's the leaders that notice things missing because they leave everything else behind, so they experience the event-meshing failures whereas the objects moving slower up the screen won't (because they're able to interact with the unshown trace of the objects which have their leading point higher up). Each object needs to be thought of like a strand of pasta which occupies the diagram from bottom to top, but the construction phase of the block requires the strands of pasta to start at the bottom and work their way up through the diagram to write themselves into the block, and their leading ends move upwards at different speeds depending on how much time they have to pass through to get into the future. It's complex, and it's a mess, but that's not my problem as it's not my theory, but theirs. All I'm doing is making a scrupulously fair attempt to run their model, and where it has deficiencies that prevent it from being run, I have to add the missing parts to provide that essential functionality. I've invited the world's experts in SR to build their own working version of their model, but they are unable to do so (because their block universe model doesn't function at all and their other SR models make events unhappen when you change frame).

3. Those are violations of the energy conservation law.

Mode 1 is actually a viable model, but you need to understand what it represents. It enables events to change at individual Spacetime locations under a Newtonian time that has to be added to enable the model to function, and that ability for events to change enables it to tolerate event-meshing failures. It's still a ridiculous model, of course, but it is what it is and I can't help that - I have done the best that can be done with their model.

but objects which are moving rapidly through space will have to move upwards more rapidly than slower objects if they are taking shortcuts into the future.

Based on what?

Based on the rules of their model - if time is not allowed to run slow on any paths (under the control of the time of a preferred frame), then they must move up the diagram in the way I have shown. They can't have their cake and eat it, no matter how much they try to.

[GoC (OP)]

They can't have their cake and eat it, no matter how much they try to.

Yes you can because there are two different cakes. You eat one and claim the other one is the one you ate in your arguments.

There is one basis for time as we use it in measurement. That basis is always c. Each frame has a ratio of c for its reaction rate. Its the reaction rate that determines the tick rate of a clock in that frame. All motion through space is counted by c as a reduction in available energy. c being total energy available. Your measuring sticks increase visually as an exact ratio to your tick slowing in your frame. This is why you always measure the same speed of light in a vacuum in all frames. GR does the same thing with dilation of energy available in zero point energy. It expands your measuring stick while increasing the distance traveled for your tick rate.

Words are ambiguous in interpretation. I just interpret them in a way that describes relativity rather than interpret them to invalidate SR or the equivalence of GR.

Many of your sources are interpretations not by Einstein. The scientific community shunned Einstein after his 1920 papers because he once again brought up a medium needed for transfer of information. It was the scientific community that wanted its cake and eat it too.

[David Cooper]

Yes you can because there are two different cakes. You eat one and claim the other one is the one you ate in your arguments.

Why are you making that claim? I'm the one who takes all their different cakes and gives them distinct names to spell out that they are not the same cake, then I show that NONE of those cakes functions properly. They are the ones who try to lump all their incompatible models together into one great mess and claim that it works. I have shown what happens when each model is simulated and what needs to be changed to make some of the models function, but all I get are objections from people who can't show any SR model working but who merely want to believe that it somehow works even though it's impossible.

There is one basis for time as we use it in measurement. That basis is always c. Each frame has a ratio of c for its reaction rate. Its the reaction rate that determines the tick rate of a clock in that frame. All motion through space is counted by c as a reduction in available energy. c being total energy available. Your measuring sticks increase visually as an exact ratio to your tick slowing in your frame. This is why you always measure the same speed of light in a vacuum in all frames. GR does the same thing with dilation of energy available in zero point energy. It expands your measuring stick while increasing the distance traveled for your tick rate.

How does that solve the problems of event-meshing failure and the unhappening of events? All you've done is allow yourself to be taken in by an illusion and to think that the speed of light relative to you is always c in every direction in every frame, but you're just doing magical thinking. If light is passing you at c relative to you and you then accelerate towards it and somehow imagine that it is still passing you at c relative to you, you've gone into the magical world of Narnia.

Words are ambiguous in interpretation. I just interpret them in a way that describes relativity rather than interpret them to invalidate SR or the equivalence of GR.

Why don't you try interpreting them in a way that can produce a functional simulation that doesn't break the rules of the model you're trying to simulate (or work out how such a simulation could be built) - that's all I'm asking you to do, and although it's an impossible task, you don't believe that so you should be more than willing to take on the task. You can call in the world's physicists to help you, and I'm sure some of them must understand how to write programs. Even if you do this, you will fail, because you cannot simulate a broken model and get it to function in such a way as to remove the brokenness.

Many of your sources are interpretations not by Einstein. The scientific community shunned Einstein after his 1920 papers because he once again brought up a medium needed for transfer of information. It was the scientific community that wanted its cake and eat it too.

I'm covering all the interpretations. Show me a model that I haven't considered and show me how it manages to do what none of the other "SR" models have managed to do. I have shown you models that can actually work as well as the ones that don't. Model 3 has two variants, one of which is LET and the other is Minkowski's 4D non-block SR with a preferred frame added to it. Both fit with experimental results, but one has a superfluous time dimension and has light follow paths which are always of zero distance and zero time (while actually going into storage for in some cases billions of years). All variants of model 2 are dead in the water because they unhappen events when they change the frame of reference they're using to control the unfolding of events. Model 1 is also viable with a block universe so long as it also includes Newtonian time so that event-meshing failures can be tolerated and corrected (meaning that events change over Newtonian time at individual Spacetime locations). It's all covered. You and your ilk have yet to propose any other model at all, never mind come up with anything that can enable anything that could deserve to be labelled as "unmofified SR" to function in the way it has to in order to match up with the claims made about SR. What should be clear to anyone of high intelligence by this point is that the simplest of the viable models which fits the facts is LET, and NONE of the viable models are SR. Importantly, LET itself is not SR because it doesn't come with any of SR's dogma which would require the universe to run on magic.

Why don't you stop for a moment and ask yourself this: how can it be that a single individual with no qualifications in physics has managed to show more than one functional relativity simulation using models that aren't SR while the entire Physics establishment has been unable to produce a single functional relativity simulation with SR? The only models they have produced are the same non-SR models as mine, plus the pseudo-functional model zero where they can produce imagined functionality within an eternal static block which they can't generate without switching to the physics of one of my non-SR models.

[GoC (OP)]

Why are you making that claim? I'm the one who takes all their different cakes and gives them distinct names to spell out that they are not the same cake, then I show that NONE of those cakes functions properly. They are the ones who try to lump all their incompatible models together into one great mess and claim that it works. I have shown what happens when each model is simulated and what needs to be changed to make some of the models function, but all I get are objections from people who can't show any SR model working but who merely want to believe that it somehow works even though it's impossible.

I realize it seems impossible. I was once on your side of the table.

How does that solve the problems of event-meshing failure and the unhappening of events? All you've done is allow yourself to be taken in by an illusion and to think that the speed of light relative to you is always c in every direction in every frame, but you're just doing magical thinking. If light is passing you at c relative to you and you then accelerate towards it and somehow imagine that it is still passing you at c relative to you, you've gone into the magical world of Narnia.

The speed of light is c relative to me only in special occasions. c is energy and available in any and all directions. If you are describing a photon it is a propagation sphere moving out from the source. We view objects as a reflection from the light source. We never view the present. We only view what happened and never as it is happening.

Light does not pass you at c in an accelerated frame. That is not what Relativity SR says. That may be what the scientific community says and if they say that they are incorrect. You may be stuck in that belief by listening to incorrect information. Remember when I said words can be ambiguous. Its your interpretation that is at fault not SR. In all frames the speed of light is measured to be the same in a vacuum. That is not!!! the same as the speed of light relative to you is the same in every frame. The fault is in the measurement. Neither the measuring stick nor the tick rate are the same in different frames. Your view of your measuring stick increases by the same rate as your tick rate decreases to confound your measurement. The same thing happens in GR but that is a physical change in the measuring stick and distance. You can either make distances constant or time constant in every frame for relativity and find a value for measurement in your frame but it is only good for your frame.

There is a difference saying measurement just like there is a difference in equally valid over valid. It is a difference in understanding that you have to find. Try looking at the puzzle as trying to solve the puzzle and not just say some of the pieces are missing.

Why don't you try interpreting them in a way that can produce a functional simulation that doesn't break the rules of the model you're trying to simulate (or work out how such a simulation could be built) - that's all I'm asking you to do, and although it's an impossible task, you don't believe that so you should be more than willing to take on the task. You can call in the world's physicists to help you, and I'm sure some of them must understand how to write programs. Even if you do this, you will fail, because you cannot simulate a broken model and get it to function in such a way as to remove the brokenness

Its not an impossible task using Einstein's interpretation over some of the less than perfect interpretations. Realizing Einstein's interpretation is a challenge that many who teach relativity fail in his interpretation. You may be a victim and see the failure. That is an important part of progress.

Why don't you stop for a moment and ask yourself this: how can it be that a single individual with no qualifications in physics has managed to show more than one functional relativity simulation using models that aren't SR while the entire Physics establishment has been unable to produce a single functional relativity simulation with SR? The only models they have produced are the same non-SR models as mine, plus the pseudo-functional model zero where they can produce imagined functionality within an eternal static block which they can't generate without switching to the physics of one of my non-SR models.

My field is analytical chemistry and you are correct not physics. But I am not burdened by the silly diversions offered by the academic standard view. I was allowed to create my own view and interpretation of Einstein's words. I recognize you are a victim of strict interpretation that does not allow for the ambiguity of words in their meanings.

 

I'm covering all the interpretations.

Except the one that is correct.

Show me a model that I haven't considered and show me how it manages to do what none of the other "SR" models have managed to do. I have shown you models that can actually work as well as the ones that don't. Model 3 has two variants, one of which is LET and the other is Minkowski's 4D non-block SR with a preferred frame added to it. Both fit with experimental results, but one has a superfluous time dimension and has light follow paths which are always of zero distance and zero time (while actually going into storage for in some cases billions of years). All variants of model 2 are dead in the water because they unhappen events when they change the frame of reference they're using to control the unfolding of events. Model 1 is also viable with a block universe so long as it also includes Newtonian time so that event-meshing failures can be tolerated and corrected (meaning that events change over Newtonian time at individual Spacetime locations). It's all covered. You and your ilk have yet to propose any other model at all, never mind come up with anything that can enable anything that could deserve to be labelled as "unmofified SR" to function in the way it has to in order to match up with the claims made about SR. What should be clear to anyone of high intelligence by this point is that the simplest of the viable models which fits the facts is LET, and NONE of the viable models are SR. Importantly, LET itself is not SR because it doesn't come with any of SR's dogma which would require the universe to run on magic.

Every frame you are in is the preferred frame to measure c. No other frame will allow your measurements to be valid. All frames are equally valid in their measurement of c. You are using time without understanding time correctly. If you are using light clocks to measure light distances how can they be any different value when your tick rate is measured as the speed of light in any frame. You use tick rate as your measurement so you use light as your measurement of light. Really what are you expecting? Do you consider that magic?

[David Cooper]

The speed of light is c relative to me only in special occasions. ... Light does not pass you at c in an accelerated frame. That is not what Relativity SR says. That may be what the scientific community says and if they say that they are incorrect. You may be stuck in that belief by listening to incorrect information. Remember when I said words can be ambiguous. Its your interpretation that is at fault not SR. ... In all frames the speed of light is measured to be the same in a vacuum. That is not!!! the same as the speed of light relative to you is the same in every frame.

You are now describing a model with an absolute frame, and that means you're not talking about SR.

Its not an impossible task using Einstein's interpretation over some of the less than perfect interpretations. Realizing Einstein's interpretation is a challenge that many who teach relativity fail in his interpretation. You may be a victim and see the failure. That is an important part of progress.

You appear to be a victim of it because you can't explain what this model is and show how it relates to the models I've simulated. What magic does it do that can't be turned into a simulation? Why are you incapable of explaining what it does?

I'm covering all the interpretations.

Except the one that is correct.

Then where is it? Tell me how it works. This magical model has escaped the entire physics community and it's only been found by you through your unique interpretation skills which enable you to understand Einstein's theory better than even he did.

Every frame you are in is the preferred frame to measure c. No other frame will allow your measurements to be valid.

Have you any idea just how daft that sounds?

All frames are equally valid in their measurement of c.

On a round trip.

You are using time without understanding time correctly.

I understand it fine, and I can lock it to process to prove that I understand it correctly and that other people's voodoo-time doesn't work.

If you are using light clocks to measure light distances how can they be any different value when your tick rate is measured as the speed of light in any frame. You use tick rate as your measurement so you use light as your measurement of light. Really what are you expecting? Do you consider that magic?

How do you imagine that telling me what everyone already knows will help in any way? The issue is how you coordinate events to eliminate the unhappening of events. How do you coordinate the ticking rates of clocks on different paths without using the time of an absolute frame? Address that directly and show me the mechanism that gets around the problem. Why should a clock tick more frequently on one path than another? What controls that? You've filled pages with guff claiming you have a model that works, but you still can't get to the point where you show its mechanism.

[GoC (OP)]

You are now describing a model with an absolute frame, and that means you're not talking about SR.

I am not discussing your interpretation of SR.

You appear to be a victim of it because you can't explain what this model is and show how it relates to the models I've simulated. What magic does it do that can't be turned into a simulation? Why are you incapable of explaining what it does?

None of your simulations are my interpretation of SR.

Then where is it? Tell me how it works. This magical model has escaped the entire physics community and it's only been found by you through your unique interpretation skills which enable you to understand Einstein's theory better than even he did

No, but I put it into a mechanical basis of energy.

Then where is it? Tell me how it works. This magical model has escaped the entire physics community and it's only been found by you through your unique interpretation skills which enable you to understand Einstein's theory better than even he did

You have to be in the right mindset to learn someone else's understanding. You are not in that mindset. You view SR as wrong and nothing will persuade you your interpretation is incorrect. I have been there. You need to overcome your own objections to see more clearly the deeper meaning.

 

Have you any idea just how daft that sounds?

Yes.

On a round trip

Yes if that is the way of measurement. Perfection is not possible.

.

I understand it fine, and I can lock it to process to prove that I understand it correctly and that other people's voodoo-time doesn't work.

There is no such thing as time in the sense you are trying to use it against SR.

How do you imagine that telling me what everyone already knows will help in any way? The issue is how you coordinate events to eliminate the unhappening of events. How do you coordinate the ticking rates of clocks on different paths without using the time of an absolute frame? Address that directly and show me the mechanism that gets around the problem. Why should a clock tick more frequently on one path than another? What controls that? You've filled pages with guff claiming you have a model that works, but you still can't get to the point where you show its mechanism.

They know it works because the observations follow SR and GR. Why it works is unknown and why we are discussing it here.
Abstract thinking is a skill set. Some have more talent than others. Einstein was amazing in this talent. I have a unique perspective because I was not formally trained in physics other than my courses. I did not get into theory until later on in life. The MMX was difficult to overcome but information transfer demanded a matrix. Energy itself is the matrix and the only one excluded from the MMX. It solves and answers all of the questions of why.
And yes I do understand how daft that sounds. Who would consider such a daft idea? If all other choices are impossible the one that is left must be true. I can explain what I consider energy to move the electrons and photons which include all spectrum waves.