[xersanozgen]

 Reciprocity principle works for classic and special relativity.

If we consider the twin event in space condition, A and B have their own speeds; and we may choose any one for reference frame. The relative speed will be Va + Vb.

And when they meet again, they will seem/become at the same age.

[Colin2B]

Colin,
Please, fix the subject of the thread.



Fair enough, here is a description.
The left origin of the blue arrows is an event A where x=x'=0 and t=t'=0.
2s in platform frame are required for the red arrow up 90 degree.
... but 1s for the blue arrow to go up 90 degree.
This is the relativity, right?
Jano

Sorry, forgot David is not OP, although he does appear to want to put this into LET vs SR territory.

The diagram is not self explanatory and certainly doesn’t define reciprocal.

I suspect by reciprocal you mean the type of symmetry described in your previous post which is closer to a definition:
Two inertial observers see each other clocks going slower.
Two inertial observers see each other Lorentz Contracted.
Whatever the first inertial observer can say about the second one then the second observer can say the same things about the first one.

This reciprocity/symmetry is not a problem in relativity despite your objections.

If you go back to Einstein’s original paper, which you quoted, you will see that symmetry is essential to his argument. He was addressing a topical problem of the time and points out that whether the wire is moving or the magnet is moving is relative and can be viewed from the frame of either the wire or the magnet. Both observers (wire frame or magnet frame) will agree on a very real effect, a current is induced in the wire. The consequence of viewing things this way is that electrodynamics is unified with Galilean mechanics and laws of both physics are independent of the inertial frame of reference. Length contraction and time dilation are a consequence of this.

I invented an exercise regimen called the Special Relativity Work Out; SRWO, about 10 years ago. ......

I really don’t see the relevance of this post to this thread. I intend to remove it unless the OP objects

[David Cooper]

Einstein's insistence that the speed of light is always c relative to any observer is nothing more than a contrived mathematical abstraction

If that was true, then why have attempts to measure light's speed in a vacuum always resulted in c regardless of the technique we use?

All attempts to measure the speed of light through the space fabric (without taking into account slowing due to depth in gravity wells) gives us the value c. The key part of your quote which you appear to have missed was the bit saying "relative to". When you attempt to measure the speed of light in a specific direction relative to yourself (an observer with a measuring apparatus of some kind), you can get any value from a fraction above zero to a fraction below 2c. If you program into the experiment the assumption that the apparatus is stationary, then you will measure the speed of light relative to the apparatus to be c. If you program a different assumption such as that the apparatus is moving at 0.5c, then you will measure the speed of light relative to the apparatus to be 0.5c in one direction, 1.5c in the opposite direction, and the full range of possible speeds between 0.5c and 1.5c for the directions in between. These results can be measured, but because the initial assumption determines the end result, the measurements aren't useful.

However, the establishment is happy to make measurements that program in the assumption that the apparatus is stationary and to point at the result ("See - the speed of the light is c relative to us") as if it's confirmation of their belief, while they reject any experiment made with a different starting assumption even though those experiments carry exactly the same weight. The establishment is happy to train up large numbers of people to go around spreading misinformation by asserting that experiments always measure the speed of light relative to the observer to be c, but for every measurement you can make for that which give you the answer c, there are an infinite number of other measurements you can make which are equally valid which give you answers that aren't c, ranging from nearly zero to nearly 2c.

Science should not be doing propaganda. Once the idea that experiments always measure the speed of light as c relative to any observer has been debunked, it should not keep being put back on the table.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Hi all,
here is a question for everybody.
A train observer on a train car with L'₀=3.4641cs' sends a light beam towards the front of the train car.
Is the light beam going to cross 3.4641cs' in 3s' of the train reference frame?
Jano

If it is not a problem then how do we explain this?
Jano

[David Cooper]

My argument has nothing to do with the ability to detect the correct frame. I'm saying there are no viable candidates from which to choose, so not knowing the correct answer on a multiple choice question becomes impossible if there are no available choices.
If you disagree, then give me a choice that works. You can't, for the reasons I explained above.

(1) In an expanding universe with three space dimensions existing within the surface layer of an expanding or contracting 4D bubble, the absolute frame can't coincide with a frame within the 3D universe. What you would have instead is a pseudo-absolute 3D frame at any given point in the 3D universe which has the speed of light travel at c relative to it in every direction, while every other frame at that location has light travel faster through it in one direction than the opposite way. In such a situation, every point in that 3D universe could have a different pseudo-absolute frame.

(2) In an expanding universe with three space dimensions expanding within a 3D superspace external to the universe, there will be an absolute frame in the universe which is the same frame as the absolute frame in the superspace which the universe expands in, but clearly for the expansion of the universe to happen, the superspace must allow parts of the universe to move faster than c through the superspace, so it isn't the same kind of frame. Again though, there will be different pseudo-absolute frames in that universe at different locations. A pseudo-absolute frame is always a frame at a specific location where the speed of light is c relative to that location in all directions.

(3) In an expanding universe with three space dimensions magically expanding in nothing with no outer anywhere to have an absolute frame, we are left with pseudo-absolute frames at every point in the universe which in the absence of an external anything become a bit more absolute than they would otherwise be, but again we have an absolute frame that's a different frame for each location.

These are complications, but for normal purposes we can ignore them and just talk about an absolute frame within a region of space in which the speed of light relative to that frame is c in every direction. Any frame could, for all we know, be that absolute frame. You claim there are no viable choices. I say there are an infinite number of viable choices. Disproof 1 and disproof 2 (which I posted here last night) confirm that there must be such an absolute frame.

Tear the argument to shreds then, using whatever argument you found on quora. I've not seen any counter to it. If my argument has been presented (and disassembled) elsewhere, I'd be very interested in seeing it discussed, since so far I've seen nothing from anybody who knows their physics.

I didn't find it on Quora. I put it there. Event-meshing failures were my discovery when I tried to simulate Spacetime models by their own rules and found that they don't work correctly. By Spacetime, I refer to pure Spacetime models which claim that there is no absolute/Newtonian time in the model - it's possible to make impure Spacetime models work by adding absolute time to them, but the establishments models ban that. While they ban it though, every single simulation they have that purports to be of their Spacetime models has absolute/Newtonian/computer time added to it to hide the event-meshing failures.

Twins Paradox - the gravity version:-

Let's look at the gravity version of the twins paradox where movement is practically eliminated (tending to zero the longer we run the experiment). Twin A stays high above a black hole. Twin B is let down near to the black hole on a long cable and hovers over it near the event horizon. After a year, twin B is brought back up again to be reunited with twin A. When they separated they were both five years old. Twin A is now 55, and twin B is 10.

What happened? The twins were separated at Spacetime location S (S for separation) and were later reunited at Spacetime location R (R for reunion). Twin A followed a path through Spacetime which was of 50 years length.Twin B followed a path through Spacetime which was only of 5 years length. There is only one kind of time in the model so there is no means for the time of either of these paths to tick slow: they will just tick at the rate of time, which means that twin B will reach location R and find an event-meshing failure: twin A cannot meet him there because she is only one tenth of the way from S to R.

That's your broken model. Your simulations all cheat by adding a kind of time that is not the time dimension, but which governs the ticking rate of the time of the time dimension in such a way as to make twin B's clock tick at a tenth the rate of twin A's clock. That mechanism is explicitly banned in the model though, so passing these models off as GTR is fraud.

They have no answers. I show them how broken their model is and ask them to show me a simulation of their model which doesn't cheat in this way and which doesn't generate an event-meshing failure with the gravity version of the twins paradox. They have PhDs falling out of their backsides, but they can't do it. They just go silent. And they can't do it because it's mathematically impossible: the universe can't do it either.

The eternal static block universe idea doesn't help either as it destroys causation, turning it into apparent causation instead with an amount of luck tied up in it which the description astronomical to the power of a googolplex barely begins to hint at. If time doesn't run and the block isn't built in order of causation, you don't have any causation there. Trying to stop time being a running process kills causation and merely takes you from one bankrupt model to another bankrupt model with no functionality at all.

Spacetime's a disproved idea, shown to be wrong by experiments which don't produce the event-meshing failures which Spacetime models actually predict (when you run them strictly by their own rules without cheating). If you want to go on smuggling in absolute/Newtonian/computer time to hide the event-meshing failures, you should own up to it and admit that you've got absolute time in the model too, and that absolute time is the real time in the model while the "time" dimension is relegated to being nothing more than an unusual type of space dimension. And once you've done that, you can apply Occam's razor to the thing and reject it by saying that LET accounts for all the same observations and experiments with the same precision in an enormously simpler way with Euclidean geometry.

[David Cooper]

The whole point of this example is that the circular motion is eliminated by the other clocks forming a relay race round the same circuit with them all moving along straight paths and confirming that the acceleration is irrelevant: it shows the case with acceleration to map with high precision to the case without acceleration, and if you want higher precision, you just add more clocks to the relay to have the polygon tend to the circle.

Oh dear.

Exactly. Glad you've seen your error at last.

[Kryptid]

The way it works is my company has a professional runner on staff, who runs around a track. The paying clients recline in chairs, at various points along the track. I then hypnotize them and have them all pretend that the pro runner is stationary, and we are all moving, I have them more their arms. Since reference is relative to the observer, and there is no preferred reference, all the clients are now in relative motion without having to actually move. They burn calories. The runner by being stationary, burns much fewer calories, base on the consensus of the majority reference. This allows him to run for hours without getting tired. I feed him one grape per hour.

Congratulations on misunderstanding relativity. The fact that the runner is moving relative to the person sitting in the chair is not what makes them burn calories (a person running on a treadmill isn't moving either, but they are still burning calories). What makes the runner burn calories is, in large part, from the rhythmic contraction of their body's muscles. The muscles will be seen as contracting and extending in any reference frame. Some of the calories burned might also come from wind resistance (which, again, will be seen in any reference frame), but that's probably a minor component.

[alancalverd]

Exactly. Glad you've seen your error at last.

No. I've seen yours.

If two bodies are travelling at the same speed along two different tangents to a circle, they are not travelling at the same velocity. Velocity is a vector, and acceleration is the rate of change of velocity.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Colin,
Please, fix the subject of the thread.



Fair enough, here is a description.
The left origin of the blue arrows is an event A where x=x'=0 and t=t'=0.
2s in platform frame are required for the red arrow up 90 degree.
... but 1s for the blue arrow to go up 90 degree.
This is the relativity, right?
Jano

Sorry, forgot David is not OP, although he does appear to want to put this into LET vs SR territory.

The diagram is not self explanatory and certainly doesn’t define reciprocal.

I suspect by reciprocal you mean the type of symmetry described in your previous post which is closer to a definition:
Two inertial observers see each other clocks going slower.
Two inertial observers see each other Lorentz Contracted.
Whatever the first inertial observer can say about the second one then the second observer can say the same things about the first one.

This reciprocity/symmetry is not a problem in relativity despite your objections.
...

If it is not a problem, please, explain this as well:



Thanks,
Jano

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Kryptid,
Question, how is it possible that when the travelling twin is in 'the same reference' frame, has almost 0 relative speed there are the biggest proper time deltas between the reference frames?
Please, see the blue lines.
Do you agree that this does not make sense?
Jano

How about this one?
Jano

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Colin,
Saying that reciprocity/symmetry is not a problem without backing it up is not very useful,
Jano

[Halc]

(1) In an expanding universe with three space dimensions existing within the surface layer of an expanding or contracting 4D bubble, the absolute frame can't coincide with a frame within the 3D universe. What you would have instead is a pseudo-absolute 3D frame at any given point in the 3D universe which has the speed of light travel at c relative to it in every direction, while every other frame at that location has light travel faster through it in one direction than the opposite way. In such a situation, every point in that 3D universe could have a different pseudo-absolute frame.

I think you’re attempting to describe the comoving coordinate system, but without knowing the terminology.  This solves the problem of any inertial frame failing to map distance places.  Using such a coordinate system, one can speak of hypothetical objects at any distance and recession rate. This is indeed the one frame of choice for the typical absolutist theory, and it is even detetable. Earth is currently on a slow day and is moving at somewhere around 400 km/sec in this frame.

 But the coordinate system fails for the black hole case. It does not foliate spacetime within the event horizon, and thus cannot be used to answer my example pair of event in the earlier post.
Thus the system is not a valid candidate for the absolute frame.  A person inside the event horizon, who presumes that system to be the absolute frame, cannot answer the question ‘what actual time is it now?’, and that question should always be answerable if an actual absolute event ordering exists. If there are multiple viable candidate coordinate systems, then sure, one cannot know which is the correct one, but if there are no viable candidates, then there can be no absolute foliation, and any theory like LET that posits such an ordering is necessarily false.

I’ve floated this argument at a few forums, but of the people that know enough of their relativity to comprehend the argument, I get a vague “I guess so” because none of them are absolutists and thus don’t find the argument to threaten their view. Most of the absolutists don’t know their physics for beans, so it doesn’t threaten their view either. You’re one of the few from whom I was hoping for an intelligent response. I have no idea if my argument is flawed. I want it taken apart since I’ve started threads defending the absolutist view against relativity. But that’s before I thought of this argument. All attempts to disprove absolutism seem flawed. Surely I’ve not discovered a valid one.

(2) In an expanding universe with three space dimensions expanding within a 3D superspace external to the universe, there will be an absolute frame in the universe which is the same frame as the absolute frame in the superspace which the universe expands in, but clearly for the expansion of the universe to happen, the superspace must allow parts of the universe to move faster than c through the superspace so it isn't the same kind of frame.

Um, this sounds like a theory of the universe expanding from one location into pre-existing empty space. If so, this view is not held by anybody as it can be readily falsified. It predicts an absence of the CMB except possibly from the one point at which the big bang occurred.  Option 3 seems to be something of the same thing. Hard to tell the difference from your description.
No, I want actual viable physics, but with the addition of a preferred foliation.

These are complications, but for normal purposes we can ignore them and just talk about an absolute frame within a region of space in which the speed of light relative to that frame is c in every direction.

Sure, it always works locally, even for the guy in the black hole. That doesn’t aid him in asking what time it is.

You claim there are no viable choices. I say there are an infinite number of viable choices. Disproof 1 and disproof 2 (which I posted here last night) confirm that there must be such an absolute frame.

Those?  I wasn’t going to bother commenting on them. You either don’t know relativity theory or you’re deliberately misrepresenting it. You’ve proven nothing with this tired strawman argument. We’ve been over this. If you don’t know your relativity, then you probably cannot defend absolutism from my argument. I need somebody who knows their physics, not somebody who mangles it for personal purposes.

Sorry to have wasted your time.

I didn't find it on Quora. I put it there.

Figures. My opinion of quora is unchanged then.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Hi all,
here is a question for everybody.
A train observer on a train car with L'₀=3.4641cs' sends a light beam towards the front of the train car.
Is the light beam going to cross 3.4641cs' in 3s' of the train reference frame?
Jano

If it is not a problem then how do we explain this?
Jano

Let's ignore this one, I have made a mistake here.
The triplet paradox and the twin paradox explanation, those I'd like to discuss,
Jano

[David Cooper]

Exactly. Glad you've seen your error at last.

No. I've seen yours.

If two bodies are travelling at the same speed along two different tangents to a circle, they are not travelling at the same velocity. Velocity is a vector, and acceleration is the rate of change of velocity.

There is a method for calculating π which involves using polygons. You use more and more sides for the polygons and you get a value closer and closer to π. As you use more and more of them, it doesn't tend to half π or twice π, or a tenth of π, or a thousand times π, but to π. This approach is well understood by mathematicians, and it's the same approach that I'm using here.The red clock ticks half as often as the white clock. I can up the speed of travel though and make it tick a thousandth as often, or a millionth, and I can put millions of clocks on tangents to the red clock's path and produce ever-greater precision in matching up their timings for parts of the circuit.They show that the red clock is ticking at the rate it's ticking at because it's moving at as near as makes no difference the same rate as the clock on a tangent that's accompanying it at that moment.

Furthermore, we can put lots of extra clocks in on other paths similar to the red clock and its accompanying clock on a tangent to make our extra clocks close off all possible ways that we might be being misled by those measurements. We can have some go slightly faster and others go slightly slower, and we can create a cage of measurements all round what the red clock is doing that show that all the clocks in that set are ticking at practically the same rate. You have a microscopic amount of wriggle room there and it does not help you one jot.

[David Cooper]

The triplet paradox and the twin paradox explanation, those I'd like to discuss,
Jano

I'd be happy do discuss them, but can't make sense of what they are from the way you've worded them.

[David Cooper]

But the coordinate system fails for the black hole case. It does not foliate spacetime within the event horizon, and thus cannot be used to answer my example pair of event in the earlier post.

The failure in the black hole case is caused by the theory your using to define the geometry of your black hole. In LET, there is Euclidean geometry and absolute time, so the problems caused by the contrived Spacetime mathematical abstraction don't occur. With black holes in GTR, you have multiple impossibilities: the singularity cannot govern the shape, size or location of its gravity well because it can't get any signals out to it. If it accelerates, its gravity well should be left behind, but you just break the rules and have them move together regardless. It's a broken mess. You can't use your broken mess to disprove a theory that doesn't have that broken mess.

Thus the system is not a valid candidate for the absolute frame.  A person inside the event horizon, who presumes that system to be the absolute frame, cannot answer the question ‘what actual time is it now?’, and that question should always be answerable if an actual absolute event ordering exists. If there are multiple viable candidate coordinate systems, then sure, one cannot know which is the correct one, but if there are no viable candidates, then there can be no absolute foliation, and any theory like LET that posits such an ordering is necessarily false.

In LET, you can't cross the event horizon and there is no singularity: a black hole is a ball of dense stuff: you slow to a halt at the outer edge and the event horizon can then migrate out past you as you push the local energy density up. In string theory too, you stop at the event horizon of the fuzzball and there is no singularity. In quantum mechanics too, I hear things about things stopping at the event horizon rather than crossing it. I wonder which theory will have to be given the push in order to unite the rest.

You’re one of the few from whom I was hoping for an intelligent response. I have no idea if my argument is flawed. I want it taken apart since I’ve started threads defending the absolutist view against relativity. But that’s before I thought of this argument. All attempts to disprove absolutism seem flawed. Surely I’ve not discovered a valid one.

Well, not only are you basing it on broken ideas about the interior of black holes, but you're using a model that also invalidates itself with event-meshing failures. I explained those in my previous post, but I don't think it gets through when expressed in mere words, so I'm writing it as a program for you (armed with a new technique which I've developed to get round the design flaws of SVG graphics to stop my code breaking every time a browser is updated). It's more than half done, so it should be up by tomorrow. There are better theories that need to be worked on: if a thousandth as much work had been done on LET as has been done on GTR, we would be far ahead of where we are with physics today. Broken theories are the wrong analysis tools.

Um, this sounds like a theory of the universe expanding from one location into pre-existing empty space.

Indeed it is: (1), (2) and (3) are covering different possible realities, only one of which at most will be the actuality. The point I was making is that it's hard to have a perfect definition of the absolute frame because of these complications, but we can have something that we call an absolute frame in normal cases even if it technically isn't one. Such an absolute frame can vary between different locations, but what is always true of it is that the speed of light is c in every direction relative to an object which is stationary in the absolute frame at a given location. STR denies that there is such a thing because it asserts that all frames have that property, but STR disproofs 1 and 2 (see further up the thread - previous page) show STR to be wrong about that. Disproof 3 also shows that the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment showed experimentally that the speed of light relative to different observers must vary:-

Disproof 3

There were experiments which disproved Einstein's STR a century ago. The Michelson-Gale-Pearson is one of those, though it wasn't recognised as such at the time. It is only today with greater minds than Einstein looking at the evidence that we can see what this experiment actually revealed. Two lots of light were sent round a rotating ring, and one lot of light returned to the emitter before the other, just as it does in the Sagnac experiment. The light that travelled in a clockwise direction passed all the material of the ring at a higher speed on average relative to that material while local to it than the light travelling the opposite way. This is observed to be the case by observers in all reference frames so it is beyond dispute. The length contraction on the ring is the same in both directions, so it clearly destroys Einstein's assertion that the speed of light is always c relative to any observer - we can put observers all round the ring, each one moving with their local part of the ring, and we know that the speed of light must be passing some of them at speeds other than c relative to them.

You claim there are no viable choices. I say there are an infinite number of viable choices. Disproof 1 and disproof 2 (which I posted here last night) confirm that there must be such an absolute frame.

Those?  I wasn’t going to bother commenting on them. You either don’t know relativity theory or you’re deliberately misrepresenting it. You’ve proven nothing with this tired strawman argument. We’ve been over this. If you don’t know your relativity, then you probably cannot defend absolutism from my argument. I need somebody who knows their physics, not somebody who mangles it for personal purposes.

There's nothing mangled about it and there are no personal purposes involved. I analyse things in a search for truth and not to back up my beliefs. I try to destroy my beliefs by testing them to destruction. I've been unable to do that here though because it it's STR that falls to pieces here. You are simply allowing your beliefs to override your ability to reason on these points. STR makes illegal moves there which no competent mathematician accepts - they just bite their lip and shake their head, not speaking out because they don't want to become targets of abuse from the mob. And what I'm getting from physicists in emails when they're pushed into a corner is outright rejection of mathematics. They think they're above it.

[xersanozgen]

In their first meeting astronout A will say to B "Your clock has been lost 2 hours". Also Astronout B will answer: "Your clock has been lost 2 hours too".

In their second meeting A  will say " your clock has been lost 4 hours" B will  answer the same,

....

against causality.

[Halc]

The failure in the black hole case is caused by the theory your using to define the geometry of your black hole.

My point exactly. I’m using something like LET and other preferred foliation theories.  The failure of the black hole case is indeed caused by the failing of that theory.

In LET, there is Euclidean geometry and absolute time, so the problems caused by the contrived Spacetime mathematical abstraction don't occur.

That’s a different geometry than the one I typically see claimed by etherists, but fine.  Euclidean geometry it is.

In LET, you can't cross the event horizon and there is no singularity: a black hole is a ball of dense stuff: you slow to a halt at the outer edge and the event horizon can then migrate out past you as you push the local energy density up.

If there’s no singularity, then why can’t you get past it? Events beyond it don’t exist in your Euclidean geometry.  This is exactly my point. Choose a geometry where the mathematical singularity vanishes (such as the local frame of somebody falling in) and there is no singularity at all.  One passes in without a hitch, but cannot answer the question what time it is far away.  He can see his old home, so it’s not like he’s exited the universe or anything, but he can’t get back to that home any more than you can get back to any event you see.

A mathematical singularity isn’t any kind of magical physical thing. It’s just an abstract artifact of a chosen coordinate system, and it is a mistake to consider such abstractions to have physical meaning.  The singularity at the center of a black hole is a physical one, not abstract at all, but you’re denying the existence of that since it isn’t in the part of spacetime foliated by your chosen Euclidean coordinate system.

An example of an abstract mathematical event horizon is the Rindler horizon.  From the accelerated reference frame of an observer accelerating at a continuous 10g, the event horizon exists about 920 billion km behind him.  That means that if he drops his passenger (with a clock) out of his window, that passenger will fall to that event horizon and freeze in time shy of its surface, and even evaporate away with a version of Hawking radiation.  From the point of view of the passenger in free-fall, he takes no notice when this horizon passes him by. I know, because I've done it multiple times, compliments of expansion of space.  The only thing that changes upon crossing said horizon is that any signal he sends back to the accelerating guy will never reach him. That’s the exact kind of thing that happens with black holes. No high-density collection of stuff at the surface. It’s life as normal from this alternate point of view. Mathematical singularities are not physical singularities.

Disproof 3

There were experiments which disproved Einstein's STR a century ago. The Michelson-Gale-Pearson is one of those, though it wasn't recognised as such at the time. It is only today with greater minds than Einstein looking at the evidence that we can see what this experiment actually revealed. Two lots of light were sent round a rotating ring, and one lot of light returned to the emitter before the other, just as it does in the Sagnac experiment. The light that travelled in a clockwise direction passed all the material of the ring at a higher speed on average relative to that material while local to it than the light travelling the opposite way. This is observed to be the case by observers in all reference frames so it is beyond dispute.

SR predicts this, or at least the Sagnac effect. How is this MGP experiment distinct from that?

You need to get your physics from legit science sites and not from quack denial sites. Citation needed.

[evan_au]

From the accelerated reference frame of an observer accelerating at a continuous 10g

I'm not volunteering to be the observer in that experiment!

[David Cooper]

The failure in the black hole case is caused by the theory your using to define the geometry of your black hole.

My point exactly. I’m using something like LET and other preferred foliation theories.  The failure of the black hole case is indeed caused by the failing of that theory.

It isn't LET that's creating a mess in black holes. If you're working with theories that can't handle time correctly, throw them in the bin where they belong. Anything that has time run at different rates for different objects breaks by generating event-meshing failures and immediately disqualifies itself from science.

In LET, you can't cross the event horizon and there is no singularity: a black hole is a ball of dense stuff: you slow to a halt at the outer edge and the event horizon can then migrate out past you as you push the local energy density up.

If there’s no singularity, then why can’t you get past it? Events beyond it don’t exist in your Euclidean geometry.

Not being able to get past it doesn't mean there are no events further in. Once the energy density reaches a certain level, the speed of light is reduced to zero (relative to the black hole rather than to the space fabric), so anything falling to the event horizon simply slows down and stops by the event horizon. All objects are made out of waves of energy bound by the same limit, and when that limit is zero, they halt. That's how they get trapped when they reach the event horizon, and it's also what stops them moving further in. Stuff that got in there earlier does exist further in though, and there's stuff all the way to the centre. There aren't a lot of events in there because the action's frozen, but time is still passing for all that stuff regardless, just as it is for the food in your freezer that isn't rotting.

This is exactly my point. Choose a geometry where the mathematical singularity vanishes (such as the local frame of somebody falling in) and there is no singularity at all.  One passes in without a hitch, but cannot answer the question what time it is far away.  He can see his old home, so it’s not like he’s exited the universe or anything, but he can’t get back to that home any more than you can get back to any event you see.

Your whole view of what goes on in a black hole is dictated by the predictions of a broken model in which the event horizon can be crossed. In GTR, if you're suspended by the event horizon, you don't see your old home because "time" stops for you, but for someone else falling across the event horizon, it isn't, so they can see out. It isn't like that in LET: there is no falling across the event horizon and there is no seeing out from the event horizon either; not because new images of the outside aren't able to get there, but because your functionality freezes and you can't process any images.

An example of an abstract mathematical event horizon is the Rindler horizon.  From the accelerated reference frame of an observer accelerating at a continuous 10g, the event horizon exists about 920 billion km behind him.  That means that if he drops his passenger (with a clock) out of his window, that passenger will fall to that event horizon and freeze in time shy of its surface, and even evaporate away with a version of Hawking radiation.  From the point of view of the passenger in free-fall, he takes no notice when this horizon passes him by. I know, because I've done it multiple times, compliments of expansion of space.  The only thing that changes upon crossing said horizon is that any signal he sends back to the accelerating guy will never reach him. That’s the exact kind of thing that happens with black holes. No high-density collection of stuff at the surface. It’s life as normal from this alternate point of view. Mathematical singularities are not physical singularities.

Again that's just nonsense generated by a broken model. Your problem is that Spacetime is incompetent: time cannot vary for different objects because that would generate event-meshing failures, and no such failures are ever seen in the real universe.

Disproof 3

There were experiments which disproved Einstein's STR a century ago. The Michelson-Gale-Pearson is one of those, though it wasn't recognised as such at the time. It is only today with greater minds than Einstein looking at the evidence that we can see what this experiment actually revealed. Two lots of light were sent round a rotating ring, and one lot of light returned to the emitter before the other, just as it does in the Sagnac experiment. The light that travelled in a clockwise direction passed all the material of the ring at a higher speed on average relative to that material while local to it than the light travelling the opposite way. This is observed to be the case by observers in all reference frames so it is beyond dispute.

SR predicts this, or at least the Sagnac effect. How is this MGP experiment distinct from that?

You need to get your physics from legit science sites and not from quack denial sites. Citation needed.

I got it by analysing the experiment: not by taking anything from quack sites. It's a mathematical proof. All observers get the same timing difference. All observers measure the length of the material to be the same in both directions. All competent mathematicians (and high-school maths teachers too) can confirm its validity.

I'll edit a link in here in a few minutes once I've uploaded the program that compares simulations and show GTR generating event-meshing failures alongside the fake version of GTR used in all the simulations that purport to be of GTR but which cheat by smuggling in absolute time...

It isn't finished yet, but there's enough there to get started, so here it is: magicschoolbook.com/science/Event-Meshing-Failures.html. I haven't got the clocks displayed yet (and it also lacks the write-up that will end up underneath it later). Note that if you don't press any buttons after starting it running, it moves the blue twin next to the black hole automatically in the year 2025 and automatically brings him back too in 2075. He ages 25 years while the red twin ages 50 years. After you've moved him manually, the automatic moves no longer occur - they're just there to make sure people see something useful happen on the first run. Notice the event-meshing failures in the GTR simulation which don't happen in the pseudo-GTR sim: the blue twin reaches the reunion point before his sister is there, so they cannot interact with each other at all there. By the time she catches up, he's still not there because he's moved on ahead, although if you're using a block universe, he can leave a fossil of himself there which she can interact with, and in doing so she will change events, but that's another issue. We actually see form the GTR sim that events change at individual Spacetime locations anyway because objects that pass through those points can't all arrive there simultaneously, so it's even more broken in that it still has to have another kind of time in it to enable that to happen. It is simply not possible to have a pure Spacetime model with running time and real causation.

The key part of the code is at the top of the function called "run()" which is run 20 times a second, and I'll put a copy of that here for you now:-

comptime=comptime+1;  // Count interval timer ticks.

// We do the GTR simulation first:-

rt=rt+1;  // Advance red twin up the screen every time by adding one to its altitude - this handles it for both simulations

if(ts!=1){bt1=bt1+1}  // Do the same for blue twin if he is right next to red twin.

if(ts==1){bt1=bt1+1/pld1}  // but if blue twin's next to the black hole, add the reciprocal of the path length difference factor - we do this because we're dealing with non-Euclidean geometry, so we have to advance him up the screen faster while his clock ticks at the full rate of the only kind of time that exists in the model.

bh1=bh1+1/pld2;  // We do the same kind of thing with the black hole, and it immediately puts it way beyond the top of the screen on the first move.

// We do the pseudo-GTR simulation now, but we can use rt for both simulations with the red twin as they behave the same way in both models as she's essentially out of the gravity well (feel free to quibble about that if you like - fixing the small difference involved won't help you), so there are only two more objects to handle:-

if(ts==0 || ts==3){bt2=bt2+1}  // We do the same for blue twin as red twin while they're side by side

if(ts==1 || ts==2){bt2=bt2+(1/pld1)*pld1}  // But if the blue twin's next to the black hole, we add the reciprocal of the path length difference factor, but then multiply the result by pld1 to make the proper time tick slow so that the blue twin doesn't get ahead of the red twin. This is where computer time governs the tick rate of any proper time to prevent it generating event-meshing failures (because computer time has to exist at all locations for all objects in order for the proper time of objects to be compared with it and adjusted to run slow to the right degree relative to it), but that breaks the rules of GTR because the computer time in such circumstances serves as absolute time.

bh2=bh2+(1/pld2)*pld2;  // Do the equivalent for the black hole so that it can't get ahead either.


So, the challenge for you (and all other defenders of the broken model) is to make a simulation like these two, but you have to produce the appearance of the second simulation in order to avoid the event-meshing failures, but without cheating by using absolute time as a control mechanism to slow the ticking of the blue twin's proper time under the governance of that absolute time which is banned in the GTR model. So how do you make the proper time tick slow? Does it just tick slow by magically knowing how much slower to tick without reference to any other time?