[guest4091]

David Cooper;

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.

If I corrected my mistake of using the same speed for both rockets, then t=4.00.

You're reading this mode wrongly. Each object leaves a solid trail of itself behind it which the other objects see at the same altitude as themselves.

It doesn't conform to a standard Minkowski spacetime diagram with a vertical ct axis and a horizontal x axis, and speed corresponding to the angle of the timeline. The typical diagram describes events in terms of one selected reference frame, and any other clock rates require a notation such as widely spaced tick marks.
Objects don't leave ghost trails, If they did we could locate the origin of light emission and calculate absolute motion in space.

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.

The graphic is supposed to be B's perception of events. Instantaneous light propagation was overturned in the 1600's based on the work of Ole Romer. Either your interpretation is wrong or the block universe model is wrong, or both. Pilots don't fly to airports that aren't there. NASA launches  probes to planets with no 'event meshing failures'.

Each object needs to be thought of like a strand of pasta which occupies the diagram from bottom to top,

A perpetual world line. Histories of positions, and only real on paper. The diagrams are not like geographical maps, but people misinterpret them as such. The greater problem is the excessive abstraction, leading people to accept the theory as a substitute for reality.

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.

There is no preferred frame controlling unfolding of events. That is a personal belief by many including yourself. All observation locations cannot record the same time for any event. Their are two types of events, 'a', when the event occurs with light emission propagating outward in all directions, and 'b', when the light is detected by a human observer or a device under their control. Reasoning on cause and effect, you can't observe an event until after it happens, therefore the time of the b-event cannot influence its happening.

[David Cooper]

I am not discussing your interpretation of SR.

The logical implications of what you said lead to the model you were describing having an absolute frame.

None of your simulations are my interpretation of SR.

So you claim, but you can't explain how your model is run.

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.

I'm open to exploring any model anyone puts forward, but you won't put the relevant parts of your model forward to show how it runs, and the reason you won't do it is either that it can't run or that it isn't what you claim it to be.

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

Given that I have shown how to lock time to process, then you are denying process too, and causation is thereby thrown out the window with it.

They know it works because the observations follow SR and GR. Why it works is unknown and why we are discussing it here.

Their model doesn't run in a simulation - they either have to use a different model from the one they claim they're using, i.e. one that has an absolute frame, or they use an eternal block model which completely fails to account for the generation of the block.

Abstract thinking is a skill set.

Which very few people can handle, and many who think they can handle it fail to do correctly.

Some have more talent than others. Einstein was amazing in this talent.

Einstein was blind to contradictions.

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.

You have merely fooled yourself into thinking you have a functional model when you manifestly don't. I asked you before if your model can handle a series of cause-and-effect events along a single path where the events unfold one before another before another. You didn't answer. If your model can't handle that, it's broken. If your model doesn't allow befores and afters, it's broken. If it can handle that, the next thing to look at is how it coordinates the action with three such paths forming a triangle in a Spacetime diagram. If you can't explain how your model handles something as simple as that, your model is simply not functional.

[David Cooper]

It doesn't conform to a standard Minkowski spacetime diagram with a vertical ct axis and a horizontal x axis, and speed corresponding to the angle of the timeline. The typical diagram describes events in terms of one selected reference frame, and any other clock rates require a notation such as widely spaced tick marks.

It conforms exactly to it, but with the additional feature of showing how a block universe would have to be generated under the rule that no clocks run slow.

Objects don't leave ghost trails, If they did we could locate the origin of light emission and calculate absolute motion in space.

The idea with the block universe is that every object has four dimensions rather than three, and one of those is a length in the time dimension stretching from where the object first existed all the way to where it stops existing. Only one point of that line is visible at any one moment to any observer inside the universe, so they cannot see a trail. There is also nothing ghostly about it - it's as substantial at any point on the line as any other. However, to generate the block in the first place, these pasta-like objects have to be fed in at one end of the block (the past) and run through the block into position. If they are run into position at speeds such that their clocks all tick at the same rate, they do what mode 1 shows, and the mess of event-meshing failures that initially occur will be driven out of the block at the future end after the strands of "pasta" change the way they interact with each other further down when the later arrivals catch up with other objects that they're supposed to meet.

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.

The graphic is supposed to be B's perception of events. Instantaneous light propagation was overturned in the 1600's based on the work of Ole Romer. Either your interpretation is wrong or the block universe model is wrong, or both. Pilots don't fly to airports that aren't there. NASA launches  probes to planets with no 'event meshing failures'.

In the block universe model, light travels all paths in zero time while shrinking them to zero distance. This turns the speed of light into an illusion, but then all movement is an illusion in the block universe model as nothing really moves at all unless you add a generation phase for it, and during that generation phase, light moves up the screen at infinite speed, but it is not moving with infinite speed because it is not covering any actual distance at all. Much as I think the block universe idea is ridiculous, I still have to take it seriously and look at whether it is in any way viable, and it is potentially viable - you say there are no event-meshing failures with NASA probes, but you can't know that to be true. No one remembers any such failures, but any failures would be corrected over time (Newtonian) and everyone's memory of those failures would be modified to match, erasing all trace of them.

Each object needs to be thought of like a strand of pasta which occupies the diagram from bottom to top,

A perpetual world line. Histories of positions, and only real on paper. The diagrams are not like geographical maps, but people misinterpret them as such. The greater problem is the excessive abstraction, leading people to accept the theory as a substitute for reality.

The reason many people take the block universe seriously is that it allows them to change frame without causing events to unhappen - the block is unchanged by frame changes, at least in terms of which events have happened and which haven't, because they've all happened in advance and the entire future already exists. It is interesting that this aspect of the Lorentz invariance is there even during the construction phase of such a block, as mode 1 of my diagram shows - when you change frame, no events unhappen and no new events happen either just in the course of making that frame change.

Clearly though, a block universe is more complex than a simple universe where the past no longer exists and the future doesn't exist yet - it only seems simpler if you don't account for how it's generated and if you're prepared to throw out any real kind of causality, but even then you end up with one of the most unlikely things ever imagined because all the apparent causality written through the block has to be accounted for by nothing more than luck.

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.

There is no preferred frame controlling unfolding of events.

Lovely, so how do you imagine that the unfolding of events on different paths is coordinated? You reject the viable ways of doing it, so what are you left with other than ways that don't work?

That is a personal belief by many including yourself.

All personal beliefs should be put aside here and be replaced by reasoned analysis (although that inevitably leads to beliefs once you understand what isn't possible and what isn't simplest) - I've shown you all the different models ways of doing things (it's possible to make things that can be described as other models, but they are merely obfuscated versions of the ones I've shown) and you reject all the viable ones, choosing instead one that disproves itself by producing contradictions (which show up when events unhappen as you change frame) and which still depend on an absolute-frame mechanism for their functionality.

All observation locations cannot record the same time for any event. Their are two types of events, 'a', when the event occurs with light emission propagating outward in all directions, and 'b', when the light is detected by a human observer or a device under their control. Reasoning on cause and effect, you can't observe an event until after it happens, therefore the time of the b-event cannot influence its happening.

Don't trip up over the illusions. If at a single Spacetime location you have two accounts of a predicted event far away and one account says that it's happened while the other account says it hasn't happened yet, one of them is wrong. Mode 2 is a fantasy model and it can't be used to run the real universe.

[GoC (OP)]

It doesn't conform to a standard Minkowski spacetime diagram with a vertical ct axis and a horizontal x axis, and speed corresponding to the angle of the timeline. The typical diagram describes events in terms of one selected reference frame, and any other clock rates require a notation such as widely spaced tick marks.

It conforms exactly to it, but with the additional feature of showing how a block universe would have to be generated under the rule that no clocks run slow.

Objects don't leave ghost trails, If they did we could locate the origin of light emission and calculate absolute motion in space.

The idea with the block universe is that every object has four dimensions rather than three, and one of those is a length in the time dimension stretching from where the object first existed all the way to where it stops existing. Only one point of that line is visible at any one moment to any observer inside the universe, so they cannot see a trail. There is also nothing ghostly about it - it's as substantial at any point on the line as any other. However, to generate the block in the first place, these pasta-like objects have to be fed in at one end of the block (the past) and run through the block into position. If they are run into position at speeds such that their clocks all tick at the same rate, they do what mode 1 shows, and the mess of event-meshing failures that initially occur will be driven out of the block at the future end after the strands of "pasta" change the way they interact with each other further down when the later arrivals catch up with other objects that they're supposed to meet.

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.

The graphic is supposed to be B's perception of events. Instantaneous light propagation was overturned in the 1600's based on the work of Ole Romer. Either your interpretation is wrong or the block universe model is wrong, or both. Pilots don't fly to airports that aren't there. NASA launches  probes to planets with no 'event meshing failures'.

In the block universe model, light travels all paths in zero time while shrinking them to zero distance. This turns the speed of light into an illusion, but then all movement is an illusion in the block universe model as nothing really moves at all unless you add a generation phase for it, and during that generation phase, light moves up the screen at infinite speed, but it is not moving with infinite speed because it is not covering any actual distance at all. Much as I think the block universe idea is ridiculous, I still have to take it seriously and look at whether it is in any way viable, and it is potentially viable - you say there are no event-meshing failures with NASA probes, but you can't know that to be true. No one remembers any such failures, but any failures would be corrected over time (Newtonian) and everyone's memory of those failures would be modified to match, erasing all trace of them.

Each object needs to be thought of like a strand of pasta which occupies the diagram from bottom to top,

A perpetual world line. Histories of positions, and only real on paper. The diagrams are not like geographical maps, but people misinterpret them as such. The greater problem is the excessive abstraction, leading people to accept the theory as a substitute for reality.

The reason many people take the block universe seriously is that it allows them to change frame without causing events to unhappen - the block is unchanged by frame changes, at least in terms of which events have happened and which haven't, because they've all happened in advance and the entire future already exists. It is interesting that this aspect of the Lorentz invariance is there even during the construction phase of such a block, as mode 1 of my diagram shows - when you change frame, no events unhappen and no new events happen either just in the course of making that frame change.

Clearly though, a block universe is more complex than a simple universe where the past no longer exists and the future doesn't exist yet - it only seems simpler if you don't account for how it's generated and if you're prepared to throw out any real kind of causality, but even then you end up with one of the most unlikely things ever imagined because all the apparent causality written through the block has to be accounted for by nothing more than luck.

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.

There is no preferred frame controlling unfolding of events.

Lovely, so how do you imagine that the unfolding of events on different paths is coordinated? You reject the viable ways of doing it, so what are you left with other than ways that don't work?

That is a personal belief by many including yourself.

All personal beliefs should be put aside here and be replaced by reasoned analysis (although that inevitably leads to beliefs once you understand what isn't possible and what isn't simplest) - I've shown you all the different models ways of doing things (it's possible to make things that can be described as other models, but they are merely obfuscated versions of the ones I've shown) and you reject all the viable ones, choosing instead one that disproves itself by producing contradictions (which show up when events unhappen as you change frame) and which still depend on an absolute-frame mechanism for their functionality.

All observation locations cannot record the same time for any event. Their are two types of events, 'a', when the event occurs with light emission propagating outward in all directions, and 'b', when the light is detected by a human observer or a device under their control. Reasoning on cause and effect, you can't observe an event until after it happens, therefore the time of the b-event cannot influence its happening.

Don't trip up over the illusions. If at a single Spacetime location you have two accounts of a predicted event far away and one account says that it's happened while the other account says it hasn't happened yet, one of them is wrong. Mode 2 is a fantasy model and it can't be used to run the real universe.

Your definition of time is really timing. Time does not slow down but timing does. That is the ratio of SR. The measurement of tick rate slows as speed increases. If you are part of the frame that your tick rate slows there is no way to measure how much it slows. This is the basis of no fixed timing. Yet there is a fixed time as a constant c. The basis of all timing is c. Your clock measures the available energy left in velocity of an object relative to c. You always measure the speed of light in a vacuum as c in all frames. This is the point. You measure the speed of light with the timing of light. You cannot measure the thing you are measuring if that thing is part of the measurement. Electrons are affected similarly. The electron and photon are confounded by the same energy available of relative c.

The distance measurements and tick rate of your clock are confounded in every frame for timing measurements. This is the reason the SoL is measured the same in a vacuum in all frames. Every frame has a different ratio to c but that ratio can not be measured. That is why there is no fixed frame for timing. There is a fixed frame for the basis of time. Energy of motion is c and c is the basis of time. Motion allows life's awareness of the present. There is nothing other than the present motion based on the energy constant.

[David Cooper]

Your definition of time is really timing. Time does not slow down but timing does.

You have just made a distinction between two things and claimed that my definition of time is the latter, but my definition of time is very clearly the former. Clocks fail to measure all the time that actually passes for them.

Time does not slow down but timing does. That is the ratio of SR. The measurement of tick rate slows as speed increases. If you are part of the frame that your tick rate slows there is no way to measure how much it slows. This is the basis of no fixed timing. Yet there is a fixed time as a constant c. The basis of all timing is c. Your clock measures the available energy left in velocity of an object relative to c. You always measure the speed of light in a vacuum as c in all frames. This is the point. You measure the speed of light with the timing of light. You cannot measure the thing you are measuring if that thing is part of the measurement. Electrons are affected similarly. The electron and photon are confounded by the same energy available of relative c.

Never mind our inability to measure time properly and to tell if we have by luck done so - the universe itself must have a right answer built into it as it runs the unfolding of events. The universe does not fool itself. If light passes one object at c relative to that object in all directions (and I'm talking about the one-way speed of light), light cannot be also be passing a second object at c relative to that second object in all directions if the second object is moving relative to the first object. The first object is stationary in the absolute frame and the second object is moving through that frame - this is an automatic requirement of having a fixed speed limit for light through space because it ties the speed of light to a specific frame which uniquely has the same one-way speed of light relative to that frame in all directions.

The distance measurements and tick rate of your clock are confounded in every frame for timing measurements. This is the reason the SoL is measured the same in a vacuum in all frames.

Same apparent two-way speed of light, but we shouldn't be fooled by that into thinking the one-way speed of light relative to us doesn't change as we accelerate towards or away from it.

Every frame has a different ratio to c but that ratio can not be measured. That is why there is no fixed frame for timing.

In saying each frame has a different ratio, you are going against the required dogma of SR which asserts very specifically that there is no absolute frame - variable ratios automatically produce an absolute frame.

There is a fixed frame for the basis of time. Energy of motion is c and c is the basis of time. Motion allows life's awareness of the present. There is nothing other than the present motion based on the energy constant.

You're not doing SR, but model 3 instead, so why are you arguing with me at all? I've stated very clearly that if you add an absolute frame to SR you can turn it into a potentially-viable model, but real followers of SR refuse to do that because as soon as they accept that there's a preferred frame, they realise they would immediately have to back LET instead because it does the same job without needing the superfluous "time" dimension. They claim they back the simplest model, but they have never actually done so - they merely pretend SR the simplest model by denying that there's an absolute frame so that they can assert that it's simpler than LET (bizarrely ignoring all the extra complexity of the infinite number of contradictions which they thereby introduce into the model, but then none of them are rational and they seem to have no respect for logic whatsoever).

So, are you actually doing model 3 or model 2? If you're for model 3, you've departed from SR. If model 2, you've got contradictions which make events unhappen when you change frame. If you're doing a mixture of models 2 and 3, you're mixing incompatible models. It's really simple stuff, so I can't see why so many people have so much difficulty getting their heads around it all and separating the different models out into different compartments in their mind where they can run them and see how they perform. You'd think my interactive diagram would help them by showing them what happens when you simulate each model, but apparently not. The big boys in SR do the block universe model in order to eliminate the unhappening of events on changing frame, but they then refuse to discuss how their magical block can be generated (because they know it can't be done under the same rules), so they're playing games of avoidance where they stick their heads in the sand. It's a shambles.

[GoC (OP)]

You have just made a distinction between two things and claimed that my definition of time is the latter, but my definition of time is very clearly the former. Clocks fail to measure all the time that actually passes for them.

There is no such thing as time. We measure one distance by another based on a c frame for everyone.

Never mind our inability to measure time properly and to tell if we have by luck done so - the universe itself must have a right answer built into it as it runs the unfolding of events. The universe does not fool itself. If light passes one object at c relative to that object in all directions (and I'm talking about the one-way speed of light), light cannot be also be passing a second object at c relative to that second object in all directions if the second object is moving relative to the first object. The first object is stationary in the absolute frame and the second object is moving through that frame - this is an automatic requirement of having a fixed speed limit for light through space because it ties the speed of light to a specific frame which uniquely has the same one-way speed of light relative to that frame in all directions

Light moves out as a sphere covering 360 degrees. If that is what you mean by all directions. The frame is c for a photon always. Our measurements of c are for one frame only as relative to that frame only Period.

Same apparent two-way speed of light, but we shouldn't be fooled by that into thinking the one-way speed of light relative to us doesn't change as we accelerate towards or away from it.

Of course it changes. We just cannot measure the change.

In saying each frame has a different ratio, you are going against the required dogma of SR which asserts very specifically that there is no absolute frame - variable ratios automatically produce an absolute frame.

I am only going against your interpretation of SR.

You're not doing SR, but model 3 instead, so why are you arguing with me at all? I've stated very clearly that if you add an absolute frame to SR you can turn it into a potentially-viable model, but real followers of SR refuse to do that because as soon as they accept that there's a preferred frame, they realise they would immediately have to back LET instead because it does the same job without needing the superfluous "time" dimension. They claim they back the simplest model, but they have never actually done so - they merely pretend SR the simplest model by denying that there's an absolute frame so that they can assert that it's simpler than LET (bizarrely ignoring all the extra complexity of the infinite number of contradictions which they thereby introduce into the model, but then none of them are rational and they seem to have no respect for logic whatsoever).So, are you actually doing model 3 or model 2? If you're for model 3, you've departed from SR. If model 2, you've got contradictions which make events unhappen when you change frame. If you're doing a mixture of models 2 and 3, you're mixing incompatible models. It's really simple stuff, so I can't see why so many people have so much difficulty getting their heads around it all and separating the different models out into different compartments in their mind where they can run them and see how they perform. You'd think my interactive diagram would help them by showing them what happens when you simulate each model, but apparently not. The big boys in SR do the block universe model in order to eliminate the unhappening of events on changing frame, but they then refuse to discuss how their magical block can be generated (because they know it can't be done under the same rules), so they're playing games of avoidance where they stick their heads in the sand. It's a shambles.

Not all people understand relativity even if they believe they do. The absolute frame is c. Its of motion itself that we use part of that energy in GR and SR. Its backwards to conventional thinking. That is the entire problem.

[guest39538]

Your definition of time is really timing.

Yes, Goc you clearly understand the difference between relative timing and time.   Please use my models as you know more than me, explain my models Goc , lets work together to prove relative correctness?

tp1.jpg (15.86 kB . 1001x617 - viewed 2116 times)
Use these two logical statements:

Forward time is directly proportional to the history created

Your next chronological position on the time line is a (tP) ahead of you.

[guest4091]

David Cooper;

you say there are no event-meshing failures with NASA probes, but you can't know that to be true. No one remembers any such failures,

Space launches fail, shuttle flights fail and people die. We remember because the events are broadcast worldwide. Do you keep in touch with the real world?

but any failures would be corrected over time (Newtonian) and everyone's memory of those failures would be modified to match, erasing all trace of them.

Those type of failures can't be corrected, they are permanent.
Who or what would modify or erase them?

You are the only person to use the term "unhappen", and it's most likely your invention. and it's nonsensical, vs the modes 2 and 3 simulations which are at least believable.

Lovely, so how do you imagine that the unfolding of events on different paths is coordinated? You reject the viable ways of doing it, so what are you left with other than ways that don't work?

If events are not coordinated by human influence, or programmed animal and plant behavior, then it's random. A landslide, flood, hurricane, etc, can rearrange the earths surface in many different ways. Quantum physics can produce varied outcomes (expressed in probabilities) from the same state. All these random activities depend on the laws of physics and chemistry and are   not compatible with a predetermined block universe.   

If at a single Spacetime location you have two accounts of a predicted event far away and one account says that it's happened while the other account says it hasn't happened yet, one of them is wrong.

You can't have two different accounts from a single location. More nonsense.

[David Cooper]

you say there are no event-meshing failures with NASA probes, but you can't know that to be true. No one remembers any such failures,

Space launches fail, shuttle flights fail and people die. We remember because the events are broadcast worldwide. Do you keep in touch with the real world?

What makes you imagine that an event-meshing failure equates to such events as a rocket blowing up? Event-meshing failures in relation to NASA probes would involve them taking shortcuts into the future and initially failing to encounter objects that they're supposed to, so if one is supposed to take a gravitational slingshot around Jupiter, the initial arrival of the probe at that location may lead to no gravitational boost because Jupiter doesn't yet exist there as it's still further back in time in the block. When Jupiter catches up with that Spacetime location, a later part of the probe-strand can interact with it and will now be accelerated around Jupiter to follow its predicted path, so this rewrites the event at that Spacetime location and may also rewrite our account of what happened if we were able to detect the previous event-meshing failure, but the end result is that we can maintain no knowledge of it as all recordings of event-meshing failures are automatically rewritten as the events correct themselves. This all refers to generating a block universe, so if you don't think it has anything to do with the real world, that's fine by me, but you should still be doing a better job of getting your head around their theory and the implications of their theory if they're worked through properly.

Those type of failures can't be corrected, they are permanent.
Who or what would modify or erase them?

They wouldn't need to be permanent at all - the mess could simply be pushed ahead through the block until the content settles down to exhibit no remaining event-meshing failures at all, but those failures necessarily occur during the construction phase if no clocks are allowed to run slow.

You are the only person to use the term "unhappen", and it's most likely your invention. and it's nonsensical, vs the modes 2 and 3 simulations which are at least believable.

The unhappening clearly takes place with mode 2, so why are you so determined to deny what your eyes can see? Run the diagram in mode 2 until the counter says 360 and then click on the minus or plus button repeatedly to change frame all the way through from frame A to B and back again. Do you not see events happening and unhappening as you change frame? Are you blind?

Lovely, so how do you imagine that the unfolding of events on different paths is coordinated? You reject the viable ways of doing it, so what are you left with other than ways that don't work?

If events are not coordinated by human influence, or programmed animal and plant behavior, then it's random. A landslide, flood, hurricane, etc, can rearrange the earths surface in many different ways. Quantum physics can produce varied outcomes (expressed in probabilities) from the same state. All these random activities depend on the laws of physics and chemistry and are   not compatible with a predetermined block universe.

The subject here is relativity. When I ask you how the unfolding of events on different paths is coordinated, I'm asking something very specific to relativity. How does the universe make clocks run slower on some paths than others and how does it decide which paths to run clocks slow on? That is what you should be addressing.

If at a single Spacetime location you have two accounts of a predicted event far away and one account says that it's happened while the other account says it hasn't happened yet, one of them is wrong.

You can't have two different accounts from a single location. More nonsense.

You can have two different accounts generated from a single location as to whether an event at a distant location has happened yet or not, and it's that that I'm talking about. If you are at the location where the calculations are being made, you can choose one frame of reference to base your calculations on and determine that the event at the other location has happened, but if you then choose a different frame of reference and do the calculations again, you can determine that the event at the other location has not happened yet. One of those calculations has produced a claim that must be wrong.

[David Cooper]

There is no such thing as time. We measure one distance by another based on a c frame for everyone.

Do you deny the existence of cause-and-effect process too (which I've already demonstrated can be locked tightly to time)? Denying the existence of time does not help your position at all.

Light moves out as a sphere covering 360 degrees. If that is what you mean by all directions. The frame is c for a photon always. Our measurements of c are for one frame only as relative to that frame only Period.

The bit about "in all directions" is there because there are always some directions across an object where the speed of light will be c relative to the object regardless of how fast the object is moving, but don't let these complications confuse you. Think about a universe with a single space dimension and light moving in two opposite directions relative to objects. If you do that, you won't be diverted away from the issue.

Same apparent two-way speed of light, but we shouldn't be fooled by that into thinking the one-way speed of light relative to us doesn't change as we accelerate towards or away from it.

Of course it changes. We just cannot measure the change.

You have departed from the rules of SR there and have, inadvertently perhaps, brought in an absolute frame (unless you're already fully aware of the consequences of your claim, in which case you should stop defending SR by pretending that a model with an absolute frame is SR).

In saying each frame has a different ratio, you are going against the required dogma of SR which asserts very specifically that there is no absolute frame - variable ratios automatically produce an absolute frame.

I am only going against your interpretation of SR.

No - you are going against the mainstream and you are not speaking for SR at all.

Not all people understand relativity even if they believe they do. The absolute frame is c. Its of motion itself that we use part of that energy in GR and SR. Its backwards to conventional thinking. That is the entire problem

You are entirely on your own with whatever model you have that you think is SR, and c is not a frame of reference.

[GoC (OP)]

Do you deny the existence of cause-and-effect process too (which I've already demonstrated can be locked tightly to time)? Denying the existence of time does not help your position at all.

No but time is not an entity that can be traveled. We ride the present only.

The bit about "in all directions" is there because there are always some directions across an object where the speed of light will be c relative to the object regardless of how fast the object is moving, but don't let these complications confuse you. Think about a universe with a single space dimension and light moving in two opposite directions relative to objects. If you do that, you won't be diverted away from the issue

We both agree light relative to a frame has a different relativity to another frame.

You have departed from the rules of SR there and have, inadvertently perhaps, brought in an absolute frame (unless you're already fully aware of the consequences of your claim, in which case you should stop defending SR by pretending that a model with an absolute frame is SR).

I have only departed from your understanding of SR.

No - you are going against the mainstream and you are not speaking for SR at all.

Yes but I am not going against Einstein's SR. Main Stream left Einstein's SR. They cannot defend their position but it is not Einstein's position.

You are entirely on your own with whatever model you have that you think is SR, and c is not a frame of reference.

That is an unfortunate belief. c is the reason for the present. What moves the electrons? Answer that question and c as a frame of reference will be clear to you.

[guest4091]

David Cooper;

In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.
A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.
Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.
B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.
Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.
E has occured for B but not for A.
What is your opinion?

[GoC (OP)]

In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.E has occured for B but not for A.What is your opinion?

I am not David but I would agree. I am also Curios as to David's Relativity interpretation vs. LET interpretation. I find them compatibly comparable. 

[David Cooper]

The adverts in the forum make my machine freeze repeatedly, so I need to minimise page loads to reduce that. As a result, this post is a reply to three posts.

No but time is not an entity that can be traveled. We ride the present only.

So that appears to tie in with the normal idea that the past was the present when it was happening, but it no longer exists, and the future will become the present but doesn't exist yet. It's hard to tell what you believe time to be when you say things like "there is no such thing as time". However, what we do have is change - we are continually changing from one present to the next, and as we do so, we refer to previous states as the past while the states that the present will change into are referred to as the future. This is the case for all objects, and the events that occur run as a process locked to causation with the present dictated by the previous state and dictating the next state.

You have departed from the rules of SR there and have, inadvertently perhaps, brought in an absolute frame (unless you're already fully aware of the consequences of your claim, in which case you should stop defending SR by pretending that a model with an absolute frame is SR).

I have only departed from your understanding of SR.

No - you have departed from SR which requires you to rule out an absolute frame. If you accept that in accelerating towards light you change the speed at which the light is moving relative to you, that is not compatible with the claims of SR. To be fair to you though, you are just choosing a different place to introduce the magic - they want the one-way speed of light to be the same relative to you no matter how much you accelerate towards or away from it because they know that if they accept it changes they are bringing in an absolute frame, whereas you appear to be accepting the first bit even though it brings in an absolute frame which you presumably then deny is being brought in, unless you are actually in favour of mode 3 (not SR) rather than 2.

Yes but I am not going against Einstein's SR. Main Stream left Einstein's SR. They cannot defend their position but it is not Einstein's position.

Einstein insisted that there is no absolute frame, so you're going against him. If you're actually defending a version of model 3 and claiming it's Einstein's, then you need to recognise that and say so. You then need to decide whether you're doing 4D Minkowski Spacetime with an absolute frame, or 3D space with Newtonian time and absolute frame.

You are entirely on your own with whatever model you have that you think is SR, and c is not a frame of reference.

That is an unfortunate belief. c is the reason for the present. What moves the electrons? Answer that question and c as a frame of reference will be clear to you.

c is the speed of light and not a frame - it makes no sense whatsoever to describe it as one.

_____________________________________________________________________

In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.
A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.
Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.
B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.
Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.
E has occured for B but not for A.
What is your opinion?

Same as before. From some locations, using some frames as the base for the calculations generates the claim that E has happened while using other frames says E hasn't happened yet. Those two claims cannot both be true. If you are simulating the action in a viable way that could represent the functionality of the real universe (and if you've ruled out event-meshing-failure-tolerant models), you will have the event E happen at some point and you will not unhappen it. You will have to set the simulation to use one frame of reference to coordinate the action and then stick to it, so it will necessarily not be running SR.

_____________________________________________________________________

In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.E has occured for B but not for A.What is your opinion?

I am not David but I would agree.

Eh! You agree with a question?

I am also Curios as to David's Relativity interpretation vs. LET interpretation. I find them compatibly comparable.

What does that mean? LET is one theory of relativity and SR is another. None of the models are compatible with each other and none of the different models represented by the same mode are compatible with each other - if any one of these models describes the real universe, the rest cannot do so.

[GoC (OP)]

So that appears to tie in with the normal idea that the past was the present when it was happening, but it no longer exists, and the future will become the present but doesn't exist yet. It's hard to tell what you believe time to be when you say things like "there is no such thing as time". However, what we do have is change - we are continually changing from one present to the next, and as we do so, we refer to previous states as the past while the states that the present will change into are referred to as the future. This is the case for all objects, and the events that occur run as a process locked to causation with the present dictated by the previous state and dictating the next state.

That is correct. We cannot travel to the past and we cannot live in tomorrow. Time travel is just science fiction.

No - you have departed from SR which requires you to rule out an absolute frame. If you accept that in accelerating towards light you change the speed at which the light is moving relative to you, that is not compatible with the claims of SR. To be fair to you though, you are just choosing a different place to introduce the magic - they want the one-way speed of light to be the same relative to you no matter how much you accelerate towards or away from it because they know that if they accept it changes they are bringing in an absolute frame, whereas you appear to be accepting the first bit even though it brings in an absolute frame which you presumably then deny is being brought in, unless you are actually in favour of mode 3 (not SR) rather than 2.

I will have to disagree. SR does not exclude an absolute frame. It just says you cannot measure based on a preferred frame. Einstein in one of his papers even mentioned except possibly c. c is the absolute frame which all measurements are created. It is motion itself. A concept you are not able to recognize as a possibility.

Einstein insisted that there is no absolute frame, so you're going against him. If you're actually defending a version of model 3 and claiming it's Einstein's, then you need to recognise that and say so. You then need to decide whether you're doing 4D Minkowski Spacetime with an absolute frame, or 3D space with Newtonian time and absolute frame.

Einstein recognized c as a possible absolute frame. Actually it probably could be described as Newtonian time c the absolute frame. Then you recognize you cannot measure from that frame accurately because you cannot use a measuring devise that includes what you are measuring. You cannot measure light using light.

c is the speed of light and not a frame - it makes no sense whatsoever to describe it as one.

Once you understand correctly it is the only thing that makes sense.

Same as before. From some locations, using some frames as the base for the calculations generates the claim that E has happened while using other frames says E hasn't happened yet. Those two claims cannot both be true. If you are simulating the action in a viable way that could represent the functionality of the real universe (and if you've ruled out event-meshing-failure-tolerant models), you will have the event E happen at some point and you will not unhappen it. You will have to set the simulation to use one frame of reference to coordinate the action and then stick to it, so it will necessarily not be running SR.

You appear not to want to understand the measurement is only relative to the frame being measured.

The adverts in the forum make my machine freeze repeatedly, so I need to minimise page loads to reduce that. As a result, this post is a reply to three posts.

No but time is not an entity that can be traveled. We ride the present only.

So that appears to tie in with the normal idea that the past was the present when it was happening, but it no longer exists, and the future will become the present but doesn't exist yet. It's hard to tell what you believe time to be when you say things like "there is no such thing as time". However, what we do have is change - we are continually changing from one present to the next, and as we do so, we refer to previous states as the past while the states that the present will change into are referred to as the future. This is the case for all objects, and the events that occur run as a process locked to causation with the present dictated by the previous state and dictating the next state.

You have departed from the rules of SR there and have, inadvertently perhaps, brought in an absolute frame (unless you're already fully aware of the consequences of your claim, in which case you should stop defending SR by pretending that a model with an absolute frame is SR).

I have only departed from your understanding of SR.

No - you have departed from SR which requires you to rule out an absolute frame. If you accept that in accelerating towards light you change the speed at which the light is moving relative to you, that is not compatible with the claims of SR. To be fair to you though, you are just choosing a different place to introduce the magic - they want the one-way speed of light to be the same relative to you no matter how much you accelerate towards or away from it because they know that if they accept it changes they are bringing in an absolute frame, whereas you appear to be accepting the first bit even though it brings in an absolute frame which you presumably then deny is being brought in, unless you are actually in favour of mode 3 (not SR) rather than 2.

Yes but I am not going against Einstein's SR. Main Stream left Einstein's SR. They cannot defend their position but it is not Einstein's position.

Einstein insisted that there is no absolute frame, so you're going against him. If you're actually defending a version of model 3 and claiming it's Einstein's, then you need to recognise that and say so. You then need to decide whether you're doing 4D Minkowski Spacetime with an absolute frame, or 3D space with Newtonian time and absolute frame.

You are entirely on your own with whatever model you have that you think is SR, and c is not a frame of reference.

That is an unfortunate belief. c is the reason for the present. What moves the electrons? Answer that question and c as a frame of reference will be clear to you.

c is the speed of light and not a frame - it makes no sense whatsoever to describe it as one.

_____________________________________________________________________

In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.
A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.
Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.
B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.
Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.
E has occured for B but not for A.
What is your opinion?

Same as before. From some locations, using some frames as the base for the calculations generates the claim that E has happened while using other frames says E hasn't happened yet. Those two claims cannot both be true. If you are simulating the action in a viable way that could represent the functionality of the real universe (and if you've ruled out event-meshing-failure-tolerant models), you will have the event E happen at some point and you will not unhappen it. You will have to set the simulation to use one frame of reference to coordinate the action and then stick to it, so it will necessarily not be running SR.

_____________________________________________________________________

In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.E has occured for B but not for A.What is your opinion?

I am not David but I would agree.

Eh! You agree with a question?

I am also Curios as to David's Relativity interpretation vs. LET interpretation. I find them compatibly comparable.

What does that mean? LET is one theory of relativity and SR is another. None of the models are compatible with each other and none of the different models represented by the same mode are compatible with each other - if any one of these models describes the real universe, the rest cannot do so.

He is checking you ability to see logic. You failed.

Eh! You agree with a question?

Yes I agree with his opinion set as a question.

What does that mean? LET is one theory of relativity and SR is another. None of the models are compatible with each other and none of the different models represented by the same mode are compatible with each other - if any one of these models describes the real universe, the rest cannot do so.

LET and SR are compatible.

[guest4091]

D.C.

Same as before. From some locations, using some frames as the base for the calculations generates the claim that E has happened while using other frames says E hasn't happened yet. Those two claims cannot both be true.

Both claims are true based on the info each observer has. An event happens once and is perceived many times.

If you are simulating the action in a viable way that could represent the functionality of the real universe (and if you've ruled out event-meshing-failure-tolerant models), you will have the event E happen at some point and you will not unhappen it. You will have to set the simulation to use one frame of reference to coordinate the action and then stick to it, so it will necessarily not be running SR.

That’s a problem for the person doing the simulation. You can have two characters doing things independently of the other. Video games do this all the time.
And the universe does not think, or decide which clocks run slow.

[David Cooper]

I will have to disagree. SR does not exclude an absolute frame.

You are one of very few people who believe that, so you're not representing what is normally meant by SR.

It just says you cannot measure based on a preferred frame. Einstein in one of his papers even mentioned except possibly c. c is the absolute frame which all measurements are created. It is motion itself. A concept you are not able to recognize as a possibility.

c is not a frame or reference and it makes no sense whatsoever to claim that it is, so why do you keep making such a claim? If you mean the frame of a photon, which frame is frame c if you have two photons moving in opposite directions? If you mean a frame half way in between those two photons' frames, then you're merely talking about an absolute frame, the frame in which light travels at c relative to it in all directions, and that frame is not called c.

Einstein recognized c as a possible absolute frame.

Really. What did he call it?

Actually it probably could be described as Newtonian time c the absolute frame.

What a descriptive mess!

c is the speed of light and not a frame - it makes no sense whatsoever to describe it as one.

Once you understand correctly it is the only thing that makes sense.

If you understood it correctly you would stop talking about a frame c.

You appear not to want to understand the measurement is only relative to the frame being measured.

You don't understand that the most important thing is what the universe is actually capable of doing. It cannot keep unhappening events to tie in with the calculations of monkeys who think the accounts of all frames are equally true. If one account says something has happened and another account calculated at the same location as the first account was produced at says it hasn't happened yet, one of those accounts is wrong. Only people who believe in magic think otherwise.

He is checking you ability to see logic. You failed.

Hardly! I'm the only one who's being fully logical about this.

Yes I agree with his opinion set as a question.

That is weird.

LET and SR are compatible.

No they aren't, but it's good that you're trying to move in the direction of LET because it shows that deep down you do understand that SR is broken.

____________________________________________________________________

Same as before. From some locations, using some frames as the base for the calculations generates the claim that E has happened while using other frames says E hasn't happened yet. Those two claims cannot both be true.

Both claims are true based on the info each observer has. An event happens once and is perceived many times.

Both claims are conditionally true, which means they're governed by an IF clause which says, if this frame is the absolute frame, then this account is true. The two IF clauses (one for each account) cannot both be true, so whichever one is false, the account tied to it which is conditionally true is actually false because the condition is false.

That’s a problem for the person doing the simulation. You can have two characters doing things independently of the other. Video games do this all the time.

The universe is running the show and it is not putting on a different show for each player in which the same events play out with a different frame of reference being used for each player such that event M happens in one version of the universe before event N while in another version of the universe event N happens before event M. Even if it was doing something so extravagantly bizarre though, you also have the problem of different players changing the frame they're using as they accelerate, which means if the version of the universe they're in changes frame to keep up with their wishes, it will have to unhappen some distant events while changing frame.

If a million different players of a game are playing it independently offline, they will have a million instantiations of the game all running independently to generate the virtual universe containing the action, and the action will quickly diverge until they're all doing different things. If the million players are instead playing a game together online, they will have one single version of the game in a data centre which keeps telling every remote copy of the game what's happening at the central version so that they all remain fully compatible with the events there. The universe is like that - a single version which does things once and doesn't then unhappen and rehappen them.

And the universe does not think, or decide which clocks run slow.

The universe determines which clocks run slow.

[GoC (OP)]

You are one of very few people who believe that, so you're not representing what is normally meant by SR.

Normally meant is a very big distinction. Many believe they understand Relativity while its only the math that is understood.

c is not a frame or reference and it makes no sense whatsoever to claim that it is, so why do you keep making such a claim? If you mean the frame of a photon, which frame is frame c if you have two photons moving in opposite directions? If you mean a frame half way in between those two photons' frames, then you're merely talking about an absolute frame, the frame in which light travels at c relative to it in all directions, and that frame is not called c

I understand your confusion. You were never taught c was a absolute frame of energy. Constant and can go no faster. The postulate of c actually creates the absolute frame. Your understanding only allows a absolute non moving no energy frame. The problem is all other frames are a subset of frame c.

Really. What did he call it?

A medium that transferred information.

What a descriptive mess!

Yes of course if understanding relativity was easy everyone would understand.

You don't understand that the most important thing is what the universe is actually capable of doing. It cannot keep unhappening events to tie in with the calculations of monkeys who think the accounts of all frames are equally true. If one account says something has happened and another account calculated at the same location as the first account was produced at says it hasn't happened yet, one of those accounts is wrong. Only people who believe in magic think otherwise.

You keep making a straw man argument. What we view with light does not represent a valid interpretation of events. The math from your frame is as close as you can get visually. To believe events happen in the order you view them is a belief in a infinite speed of light. If light were infinite we could not distinguish objects at all. Beyond 13.6 billion light years by our frame light is a homogenous mixture that does not allow for images.

 

If you understood it correctly you would stop talking about a frame c

What moves the electron? You do not have a clue to that let alone fractal views of relative c for a frame of mass.

You don't understand that the most important thing is what the universe is actually capable of doing. It cannot keep unhappening events to tie in with the calculations of monkeys who think the accounts of all frames are equally true. If one account says something has happened and another account calculated at the same location as the first account was produced at says it hasn't happened yet, one of those accounts is wrong. Only people who believe in magic think otherwise.

What you view by observed position is equally true. Your fractal view is your measurement to relative c frame. All frames measure the same relative SOL. The funny thing is that has to be if you measure light speed with light. You cannot measure something if what you are measuring is part of the measurement. This takes a depth of understanding.

Hardly! I'm the only one who's being fully logical about this.

Yes you are being logical to your understanding. Fully logical might be beyond anyone's understanding.

That is weird

phyti set a scenario and asked if you agreed with his opinion. Yes I agree with his opinion. Do you consider it weird to agree with someone's opinion? That might be telling.

 

No they aren't, but it's good that you're trying to move in the direction of LET because it shows that deep down you do understand that SR is broken.

The math's are the same. Main stream might be prejudice about an absolute frame but SR does not discriminate and neither did Einstein in his 1920 papers. Main stream ignored him after that. Your beef is with main stream not SR per say.

Both claims are conditionally true, which means they're governed by an IF clause which says, if this frame is the absolute frame, then this account is true. The two IF clauses (one for each account) cannot both be true, so whichever one is false, the account tied to it which is conditionally true is actually false because the condition is false.

 Lets take two observers 180 degrees apart. There are two objects between them that are separated. The two observers are A and B. The two objects are C and D. Event one C flashes and reflects off of D. A observer sees C flash than D reflect. So observer A views C than D. Observer B views C and D simultaneous by position. The reason is because when C event reaches D both the flash event and the reflection travel at the same rate to observer B.

Nothing is un-happening because of your observed position. They are two different positions. No view with light is God's eye valid. You can never view the present. Only the God's eye position is the present. I believe in Relativity and not in the God's eye view.

The universe is running the show and it is not putting on a different show for each player in which the same events play out with a different frame of reference being used for each player such that event M happens in one version of the universe before event N while in another version of the universe event N happens before event M. Even if it was doing something so extravagantly bizarre though, you also have the problem of different players changing the frame they're using as they accelerate, which means if the version of the universe they're in changes frame to keep up with their wishes, it will have to unhappen some distant events while changing frame.

No view is valid

If a million different players of a game are playing it independently offline, they will have a million instantiations of the game all running independently to generate the virtual universe containing the action, and the action will quickly diverge until they're all doing different things. If the million players are instead playing a game together online, they will have one single version of the game in a data centre which keeps telling every remote copy of the game what's happening at the central version so that they all remain fully compatible with the events there. The universe is like that - a single version which does things once and doesn't then unhappen and

Each are different a million different frames not the same as a single universe.

[David Cooper]

You are one of very few people who believe that, so you're not representing what is normally meant by SR.

Normally meant is a very big distinction. Many believe they understand Relativity while its only the math that is understood.

Normally, in this case, means the qualified people who tell everyone what SR is and who would ban you from physics forums if you told them they are wrong about what SR is and what Einstein said it is. You do not represent the mainstream on SR, but you don't represent Einstein either. He attached some very specific dogma to it which excludes the existence of an absolute frame.

I understand your confusion. You were never taught c was a absolute frame of energy. Constant and can go no faster. The postulate of c actually creates the absolute frame. Your understanding only allows a absolute non moving no energy frame. The problem is all other frames are a subset of frame c.

You are misusing the word frame by calling c a frame.

Really. What did he call it?

A medium that transferred information.

Did he call it a frame? Why are you calling it a frame when it is not a frame?

You keep making a straw man argument.

There is no straw man involved. A simulation does one thing. The universe does one thing - it does not maintain all events as both happened and not-yet-happened at the same time. They happen once and definitively, and then they don't unhappen.

What we view with light does not represent a valid interpretation of events.

You clearly still don't understand how the diagrams work and what they represent - they show the God view and remove all the distortions that come from communication delays.

The math from your frame is as close as you can get visually. To believe events happen in the order you view them is a belief in a infinite speed of light. If light were infinite we could not distinguish objects at all. Beyond 13.6 billion light years by our frame light is a homogenous mixture that does not allow for images.

You're not even in the argument - you still misunderstand the basics. Forget about what can be seen and what can't be seen. The issue is about when things happen relative to other events at other locations.

If you understood it correctly you would stop talking about a frame c

What moves the electron? You do not have a clue to that let alone fractal views of relative c for a frame of mass.

We're talking about relativity and not about what moves an electron. It doesn't matter how you move an electron - it makes no difference to the event coordination issues.

What you view by observed position is equally true.

If you see something happen, it's happened. The issue is about things further away that you can't see happening yet.

Your fractal view is your measurement to relative c frame.

What do you mean by fractal? I can't see any connection with the subject.

All frames measure the same relative SOL.

and all but one of them get it wrong because they base the measurements on a false assumption.

The funny thing is that has to be if you measure light speed with light. You cannot measure something if what you are measuring is part of the measurement. This takes a depth of understanding.

What takes depth of understanding is getting to the point where you stop being fooled by measurements based on false assumptions and realise that the accounts of reality which different frames produce are not compatible.

Yes you are being logical to your understanding. Fully logical might be beyond anyone's understanding.

I am using the logic accepted by mathematics and am applying it. It shows that logic and SR are not compatible with each other, so one of them is broken.

phyti set a scenario and asked if you agreed with his opinion. Yes I agree with his opinion. Do you consider it weird to agree with someone's opinion? That might be telling.

A question is not an opinion. There is no opinion there.

The math's are the same. Main stream might be prejudice about an absolute frame but SR does not discriminate and neither did Einstein in his 1920 papers. Main stream ignored him after that. Your beef is with main stream not SR per say.

Einstein was with the mob - he set the dogma in place. If you want to make out that Einstein was in the LET camp, that's going to be a hard one to get anyone to accept.

Lets take two observers 180 degrees apart.

That's a good start!

There are two objects between them that are separated. The two observers are A and B. The two objects are C and D. Event one C flashes and reflects off of D. A observer sees C flash than D reflect. So observer A views C than D. Observer B views C and D simultaneous by position. The reason is because when C event reaches D both the flash event and the reflection travel at the same rate to observer B.

Nothing is un-happening because of your observed position. They are two different positions. No view with light is God's eye valid. You can never view the present. Only the God's eye position is the present. I believe in Relativity and not in the God's eye view.

This just shows how far you are from even beginning to understand the issue I've been discussing. You're fixated on light communication limitations and can't see beyond that. You have created two events, one at C and one at D, and in every frame of reference, C must happen before D. If you had any inkling of an idea what the real issue is, you'd have two events, one at C and one at D which in some frames are simultaneous. Then you would look at your A and B observers and ask what they think. One would say that they saw the event at C before they saw the event at D and the other would say the opposite, but that's got nothing to do with the issue. Both A and B would say that the two events were simultaneous regardless of which event they saw happen first if the events C and D both happened at the same moment in the frame or reference used by A and B to calculate when those events occurred. They are not stupid - they correct for the communication delays and end up with an account of the action which you would see in the God view (with the God view based on that frame). You are still at such a beginner's level that you reject the God view (which gives a clear view of the action) and allow yourself to be misled by views warped by communication delays. If you could ever get to the level of understanding required to discuss this subject properly, you would then realise that if you change frame, you then generate accounts claiming that C happens before D and that D happens before C (which cannot happen with the example you built where C must always happen before D). In my version of the experiment, as you simulate the unfolding of events with the coordination governed by one frame, both C and D may be simultaneous. Change the frame at that point and you have to unhappen one of them.

No view is valid

That's as good as claiming that the universe doesn't exist.

Each are different a million different frames not the same as a single universe.

If they're all playing online with a single version of the virtual universe, it is directly equivalent to the real universe with the same events happening for all and not unhappening, although there's no relativity aspect tied up in it because all the players are effectively at rest in the same frame. If you were to add a relativity aspect to the game to deal with players moving fast from one planet to another, you would either need to slow down activity for some of them (based on an absolute frame) to coordinate the actions, or you'd run into event-meshing failures.

[GoC (OP)]

Normally, in this case, means the qualified people who tell everyone what SR is and who would ban you from physics forums if you told them they are wrong about what SR is and what Einstein said it is. You do not represent the mainstream on SR, but you don't represent Einstein either. He attached some very specific dogma to it which excludes the existence of an absolute frame

In the past the qualified people believed if you sailed to far you would fall off the Earth. The qualified people do not understand the reason for gravity and magnetism. I believe I represent Einstein's SR.

You are misusing the word frame by calling c a frame.

Frames are distinguished by the clocks tick rate. At c there is no tick rate. That is the absolute frame just not what you were expecting.

Did he call it a frame? Why are you calling it a frame when it is not a frame?

Consider it the absolute frame.

You clearly still don't understand how the diagrams work and what they represent - they show the God view and remove all the distortions that come from communication delays.

God's eye is not relativity.

You're not even in the argument - you still misunderstand the basics. Forget about what can be seen and what can't be seen. The issue is about when things happen relative to other events at other locations

That is not relativity.

We're talking about relativity and not about what moves an electron. It doesn't matter how you move an electron - it makes no difference to the event coordination issues.

It doesn't matter why the electron moves? You fail to include all in your understanding. That is why you misunderstand SR.

What do you mean by fractal? I can't see any connection with the subject

There is a base of understanding you are missing if you do not understand fractal. Gulliver's travels is based on fractal views.

and all but one of them get it wrong because they base the measurements on a false assumption

Or you on false understanding. If you do not understand the fractal aspect of the view in a frame than you do not understand relativity.

This just shows how far you are from even beginning to understand the issue I've been discussing. You're fixated on light communication limitations and can't see beyond that.

Which is the basis of relativity.

That's as good as claiming that the universe doesn't exist.

Hardly, no view is of the present.