[Colin2B]

Distance and time are more like reference variables. I cannot throw distance or time at you and make it hurt.

If you fall 1m it might hurt, if you fall 100m you won’t feel it - ever again. If I lock you up for 1 month that is an inconvenience, for 100 years it’s life changing.

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

I did back it up, but I will expand.
You read Einstein’s electrodynamics paper, he mentions the asymmetry in viewing a moving magnet or a moving wire which is not resolved using Galilean transforms, nor is the problem of transforming Maxwell’s laws; but these are resolved using Einstein’s proposals. It results in some symmetries of time dilation and length contraction from the perspective of different observers; is this a problem?
We are all familiar with the Galilean transforms which allow us to transform Newton’s laws of motion to the perspective of (slow) moving observers, they also results in some symmetries, which I’m sure I don’t need to spell out. Those symmetries don’t cause problems if you understand Galilean relativity and are clear which frame you are taking measurements from, similarly the SR transforms don’t cause problems.

There are 2 big questions: are the effects real, is there an alternative?

If by real we mean can be subject to objective measurements, then SR/GR pass as real effects and there is plenty of evidence from particle accelerators, NIST experiments, gravity probes, etc.

Is there an alternative? Well, David is proposing one.

I don’t see much point in you going over old ground with the SR scenarios, which have been done to death. The bigger question is whether you can take the electrodynamics paper and propose a rigorous alternative which allows accurate transforms and aligns with observations that the laws of electromagnetism are not frame dependent. The big outcome from the electrodynamics paper was the proposal that electric and magnetic fields are not separate, but are different aspects of a single electromagnetic field, can you preserve this or do you have a different proposal. I’m not aware David has got this far, but then I haven’t read his latest material, something I must make time to do.

[Halc]

If you're working with theories that can't handle time correctly, throw them in the bin where they belong.

Einstein’s GR handles black holes just fine since it has no requirement for an absolute ordering of all events. LET does, and since there cannot be such an ordering, it can’t work, so it is forced to deny the existence of these unmappable events.

Anything that has time run at different rates for different objects breaks by generating event-meshing failures and immediately disqualifies itself from science.

GR is fine then because it doesn’t posit time ‘running’ at all. Neither does LET, but nLET does, and you seem to be pushing a variant of the nLET view.  I’m attacking the preferred foliation premise, not the running-time premise.

If there’s no singularity, then why can’t you get past it?

Not being able to get past it doesn't mean there are no events further in.

If you deny that those events will ever happen, then it is self-contradictory to assert that there are events further in. I’m pointing out self-contradictions with the view. You’re seemingly confirming these contradictions rather than attempting to resolve them. I’m inside the event horizon relative to some distant Euclidean space, so my existence now is hard evidence that the distant Euclidean space is an invalid choice for the absolute frame. Similarly, his existence invalidates my Euclidean space, so now you have to posit geocentrism and deny the existence of this distant place because we’re special.

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.

I explained how an abstract singularity can be crossed since it isn’t physical. This is another strawman assertion. The ‘stuff accumulating on the event horizon’ model was essentially put to rest back in the 60’s. It has contradictions and doesn’t work. I brought up the Rindler thing just to demonstrate the non-physical nature of a mathematical singularity.

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.

You apparently don’t know GTR at all, but I already knew that. You very much can see out since time does not stop for any observer. OK, it stops at the physical singularity, since it is not a location in space but literally a physical end to time. Until that time, an observer can see his old home. I have a link to a stack exchange discussion asking this very question, because some are under the impression that the guy falling in will, due to infinite time dilation, witness the end of the universe, which is shown to be false. There are events on the outside that can never have a causal effect on our guy inside the black hole because they will not reach him before time ends for him. It is events after this point that cannot be objectively ordered with events inside.

Again that's just nonsense generated by a broken model.

This is all SR, and in flat Euclidean (Minkowski actually) spacetime. Right, you declare ‘broken’ a model you want to be wrong. This is what I mean be ‘sorry to have wasted your time’.

I got it by analyzing the experiment: not by taking anything from quack sites.

I seriously doubt you have the capability to do that. All your post show invalid strawman rules about how relativity works. No wonder you came to the conclusion that it is some kind of proof. No, I was looking for something more peer reviewed.

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.

Most mathematicians and high school teachers don't know relativity theory. I want a physicist who knows how to apply the theory correctly, and not just somebody checking things for arithmetic errors.The arithmetic seems trivial in your simulation.
For instance, the analysis of the light ring (Sagnac) on the crank sites always involves cutting the ring up into little local straight pieces and then adding them up as if they were in a straight line. To do it correctly, either one frame must be chosen (makes it easy), or one must rotate the coordinates each time the next segment is added in, which is intense calculus I never see being done because they hope the audience doesn't spot the error.

About the simulation:

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...

The program presumes a sort of personal presentism, essentially a real-time moving spotlight for humans only view, with the addition of your assumption of the erasure of any material human that isn't at its own present. I notice the gravity source doesn't have a 'present' (a colored dot), but the observers do. It is a gross misrepresentation of GTR which only talks about worldlines without the moving dot.

This is what I mean by strawman arguments. You fallaciously introduce presentism to 'disprove' a theory that doesn't posit it. There's no concept of a 'meshing error' in a non-presentist view.

[David Cooper]

]Einstein’s GR handles black holes just fine since it has no requirement for an absolute ordering of all events. LET does, and since there cannot be such an ordering, it can’t work, so it is forced to deny the existence of these unmappable events.

You're using a model which generates contradictions, and then you rule out a theory that doesn't on the basis that it doesn't reproduce the contradictions of the broken model that you use, and worse, you use LET's failure to break in the same way as your model as evidence that your model must be right! Your model simply can't handle time correctly. It doesn't matter how much brilliance has been built on top of a faulty foundation - so long as it includes the faulty foundation, the whole thing's broken.

GR is fine then because it doesn’t posit time ‘running’ at all. Neither does LET, but nLET does, and you seem to be pushing a variant of the nLET view.  I’m attacking the preferred foliation premise, not the running-time premise.

If you have no running time, you have no causation, so you're working with a broken model from the start. No apparent effect can have been caused by its apparent cause because no process of any kind ever ran. It's a magic model: not a scientific one.

If there’s no singularity, then why can’t you get past it?

Not being able to get past it doesn't mean there are no events further in.

If you deny that those events will ever happen, then it is self-contradictory to assert that there are events further in.

The frozen stuff in your freezer is starved of events too, but you shouldn't mistake events for time. Time can pass without any events being apparent.

I’m inside the event horizon relative to some distant Euclidean space, so my existence now is hard evidence that the distant Euclidean space is an invalid choice for the absolute frame.

If you're frozen inside a black ball (which is what a black hole really is), time's still going past for you just as it is for everything outside the ball, but you don't register any of it. You just stay there until you're evaporated away by Hawking radiation trillions of years in the future, and throughout those trillions of years, that's where you are.

Similarly, his existence invalidates my Euclidean space, so now you have to posit geocentrism and deny the existence of this distant place because we’re special.

Perhaps you're making a mistake in visualising the Euclidean space: it's the same coordinate system for everything inside and outside the black hole. As you descend into a gravity well (without even needing to go into a black hole), your attempts to impose the grid on the things around you goes wrong if you assume that it won't be warped by the speed of light changes with depth, so observers who create what they think are correct grids down there put the lines in the wrong places. In the same way, the correct Euclidean grid lines will look warped to them. The two things must not be conflated.

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.

I explained how an abstract singularity can be crossed since it isn’t physical. This is another strawman assertion. The ‘stuff accumulating on the event horizon’ model was essentially put to rest back in the 60’s. It has contradictions and doesn’t work. I brought up the Rindler thing just to demonstrate the non-physical nature of a mathematical singularity.

The idea doesn't appear to have been put to rest at all - it just disagrees with a broken theory which generates contradictions and then uses those contradictions to attack other theories for not generating contradictions too. There is nothing that can be measured from the outside of a black hole that isn't compatible with everything piling up at the event horizon. Everything you think you know about black holes is warped by the broken theory which provides the rules for it - it should have been ruled out right at the start by the event-meshing failures, and the escape route of trying to eliminate the event-meshing failures by eliminating running time forces you into an eternal block with no causation in it which was never created, but just had all that apparent causation written through it by luck alone, while the amount of luck involved in that would be equivalent to entering the lottery every day and winning the jackpot every day for something like the length of time the universe exists to the power of a googolplex. It is not viable science.

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.

You apparently don’t know GTR at all, but I already knew that. You very much can see out since time does not stop for any observer.

If you are suspended by the event horizon, your functionality stops so you can't see out. Who is it that's misunderstanding GTR here? Suspend a light clock at the event horizon where the speed of light inwards might be anything from c to 2c (I don't know what it's supposed to be), but outwards the speed of light at that location is zero, so the light clock cannot go on ticking and the person with it cannot be functioning either for the same reason. The light carrying information about events outside the black hole would still be reaching him, but he has no ability to perceive any of it.

OK, it stops at the physical singularity, since it is not a location in space but literally a physical end to time. Until that time, an observer can see his old home.

Which is viewing from outside the event horizon.

I have a link to a stack exchange discussion asking this very question, because some are under the impression that the guy falling in will, due to infinite time dilation, witness the end of the universe, which is shown to be false. There are events on the outside that can never have a causal effect on our guy inside the black hole because they will not reach him before time ends for him. It is events after this point that cannot be objectively ordered with events inside.

As he falls in across the event horizon, his inward movement enables light to move outwards relative to him, so his functionality is not frozen in such a case. How long he would be able to go on witnessing external events, I don't know - I haven't explored the predictions of the broken theory far enough to know what would result in terms of how long (in real time rather than proper time) it would take for him to reach the singularity.

Again that's just nonsense generated by a broken model.

This is all SR, and in flat Euclidean (Minkowski actually) spacetime. Right, you declare ‘broken’ a model you want to be wrong. This is what I mean be ‘sorry to have wasted your time’.

If it's Spacetime, it's automatically a broken model because it generates event-meshing failures.

I got it by analyzing the experiment: not by taking anything from quack sites.

I seriously doubt you have the capability to do that. All your post show invalid strawman rules about how relativity works. No wonder you came to the conclusion that it is some kind of proof. No, I was looking for something more peer reviewed.

If all you look at is material endorsed by the clergy, you'll never get out of that mess. I'm not doing anything strawman: I'm testing the foundations of models and finding faults in them which exist not only in the simple cases where they're easiest to see, but in all the complex piles of convoluted junk that people have built on top of them. The event-meshing failures don't magically disappear just because the pile of pants on top of the basic model keeps growing into a mountain.

Most mathematicians and high school teachers don't know relativity theory.

But they do understand the basic rules of maths which the physicists are breaking.

I want a physicist who knows how to apply the theory correctly, and not just somebody checking things for arithmetic errors.The arithmetic seems trivial in your simulation.

It is indeed trivial, and yet the physicists get the wrong answer from it because they impose what they want to be true on the experiment and reject what it actually tells them.

For instance, the analysis of the light ring (Sagnac) on the crank sites always involves cutting the ring up into little local straight pieces and then adding them up as if they were in a straight line. To do it correctly, either one frame must be chosen (makes it easy), or one must rotate the coordinates each time the next segment is added in, which is intense calculus I never see being done because they hope the audience doesn't spot the error.

Well, there's no straight line cutting in my analysis of MGP.

The program presumes a sort of personal presentism, essentially a real-time moving spotlight for humans only view, with the addition of your assumption of the erasure of any material human that isn't at its own present. I notice the gravity source doesn't have a 'present' (a colored dot), but the observers do. It is a gross misrepresentation of GTR which only talks about worldlines without the moving dot.

The gravity source is at the centre of the biggest dot on the screen. In the left-hand simulation it shouldn't really be shown as a dot on the screen at all as it should already be beyond the top and merely leave a fossilised trace of itself behind if you're using a block universe. I don't know what you mean by the "assumption of the erasure of any material human that isn't at its own present": the trace left behind is the retention of them.

This is what I mean by strawman arguments. You fallaciously introduce presentism to 'disprove' a theory that doesn't posit it. There's no concept of a 'meshing error' in a non-presentist view.

I have presentism and eternalism both shown at the same time. If you want presentism, focus on the dots. If you want eternalism, focus on the trails. If you want causality to be real in addition to eternalism, then you should focus on the dots as well as a trail because you have to generate your eternal block with a running process to make the causation real, and the block left behind then becomes eternal, but to have an eternal block with no running process to create it in the first place, you're doing magic rather than science.

[Kryptid]

But they do understand the basic rules of maths which the physicists are breaking.

What rules are being broken?

It is indeed trivial, and yet the physicists get the wrong answer from it because they impose what they want to be true on the experiment and reject what it actually tells them.

Sounds like you are saying that there was an experiment that produced results at odds with relativity. When was that experiment performed? By who? What about the results falsified relativity?

[Halc]

You're using a model which generates contradictions

I am not. Your simulation seems to be using a model which generates contradictions, which I will call General Relativity with David’s Additions, or GRwDA for short. Yes, I agree that the model is contradictory, but I’m not using that one, nor am I really pushing any model at all in my posts here. I’m merely proposing a contradiction with the idea of a preferred foliation. You’re the one who decided to drag the second premise of a preferred moment in time.

If you have no running time, you have no causation

There you go. That’s a good foot to start on. Demonstrate that statement without a begging definition of causation. You can’t do that because you seem incapable of letting go of your biases long enough to consider an alternate view on its own terms. That’s your handicap. Most of the rest of the physics world has no trouble setting your premises aside, even if they personally believe in them. They can consider an alternate theory on its own grounds and critique it without introducing their beliefs. You on the other hand seem incapable of that, so you probably shouldn’t be in the business of disproving views that you don’t hold.

I haven't explored the predictions of the broken theory far enough to know what would result in terms of how long (in real time rather than proper time) it would take for him to reach the singularity.

The theory that you find broken does not posit any concept of ‘real time’. That’s one of your additions, and the one that I’m finding to be self-contradictory for the reasons stated.

I'm not doing anything strawman

I was quite explicit when point out how you’re doing it. Your biases seem to run so deep that you are perhaps incapable of seeing them even when they’re explicitly pointed out to you. As I said, that’s your problem, not a problem with a theory that doesn’t assume those premises.

I don't know what you mean by the "assumption of the erasure of any material human that isn't at its own present": the trace left behind is the retention of them.

OK, it seems to be one way. The blue dot gets ahead, and there is no red human yet, who has fallen behind. Nobody gets erased, but if the blue guy waits far enough to the left, he’ll suddenly see the red person pop into existence, and simultaneously the red person will see the blue person momentarily ‘defossilize’ and then blink out, which is sort of ‘human erasure’ if you ask me.
I slowly lean in to kiss Alice, but my motion puts me slightly in her future, leaving her a short distance in the past. She blinks out of my existence, leaving Alice with only a fossilized trace to mesh with when she’s lonely. Oh wait, I forgot, we’re siblings. Maybe it's for the best then.
That doesn’t invoke GR at all.  It is just SRwDA.  I agree that it is trivially falsified by empirical test. The could not exist since any moon would have been left in my past.

I have presentism and eternalism both shown at the same time.

Both sides have moving dots, so both sides are presentist. Somehow you don’t see even that much.  Amazing.

If you want presentism, focus on the dots. If you want eternalism, focus on the trails.

The trails grow behind the dots. That’s presentism. Only the final image without the dots is a reasonable depiction of the eternal view, without the preceding ‘simulation’. Any ‘construction phase’ of the block puts time outside of the block, which contradicts time being by definition intrinsic to the block. A B-theory universe cannot be a created thing, but a growing block universe can. The latter is still A-theory, or presentism.

The only difference then (without the dots) is that right side has a preferred foliation (shown in red, and undetectable by any observer) and the left side does not. That’s the only actual difference between GTR and LET.  Your second addition of the moving dots to both sides makes it GRwDA and nLET respectively, but it is the red numbers that I’m finding contradictory, not the second addition of the dots. If the red numbers are not contradictory, then neither are the dots that require the red numbers. I have no explicit argument against the dots.

[David Cooper]

What rules are being broken?

See post #33: disproofs 1 and 2: mixing measurements from different frames.

Sounds like you are saying that there was an experiment that produced results at odds with relativity. When was that experiment performed? By who? What about the results falsified relativity?

The details are in post #58: disproof 3.

[David Cooper]

Your simulation seems to be using a model which generates contradictions, which I will call General Relativity with David’s Additions, or GRwDA for short.

What have I added to GTR? I've simply shown the simplest simulation of it in which there is precisely one kind of time in the model and Newtonian time is kept out. The computer time in the simulation must be the proper time of each object in the simulation: no object's proper time is allowed to run at a different rate from any other object's proper time. In the other simulation (pseudo-GTR), absolute time is brought in to prevent the event-meshing failures, but that breaks the rules of GTR. The challenge is open for people who somehow imagine that GTR's a viable model to show how to simulate it without event-meshing failures and to do it without introducing absolute time. I say it's a mathematically impossible task, but if they're right, they should be able to do it. As it stands, all they have ever produced are the two models shown here, and they delete the first one in a hurry every time they produce it because they think there's a bug in it, but no: that is GTR and it is GTR that contains the bug.

You’re the one who decided to drag the second premise of a preferred moment in time.

I did two things. I show how GTR with running time breaks, forcing people cheat in their simulations in order to hide the fatal defect, but I also told you that getting rid of running time fails because it eliminates causation. A model that depends on such extreme amounts of luck that it becomes one of the most unlikely ideas ever imagined while not being technically impossible (i.e. more unlikely than tossing a coin billions of times and always having it land upright on its edge instead of being heads or tails), and that isn't something that science should be backing.

If you have no running time, you have no causation

There you go. That’s a good foot to start on. Demonstrate that statement without a begging definition of causation. You can’t do that because you seem incapable of letting go of your biases long enough to consider an alternate view on its own terms. That’s your handicap. Most of the rest of the physics world has no trouble setting your premises aside, even if they personally believe in them. They can consider an alternate theory on its own grounds and critique it without introducing their beliefs. You on the other hand seem incapable of that, so you probably shouldn’t be in the business of disproving views that you don’t hold.

Pointing out the reality of how bad a broken model is is not a bias. If you never generate the future out of the past, you simply cannot have causation: you have taken away all possibility of any effect being caused by its supposed cause. The action of causation never happens so there is no causation. It's a magic model - not a scientific one.

The theory that you find broken does not posit any concept of ‘real time’. That’s one of your additions, and the one that I’m finding to be self-contradictory for the reasons stated.

Without real time, all it has is the time of the time dimension which is the proper time of objects, and if that's all you have in the model, you get event-meshing failures which invalidate the model. That is why simulations that purport to be of GTR and don't display event-meshing failures have to cheat by bringing absolute (real) time into them to hide the defect.

I'm not doing anything strawman

I was quite explicit when point out how you’re doing it.

Respecting mathematics is not a bias. When you insist on using a broken model which has broken mathematically, that's where a bias is in play.

Your biases seem to run so deep that you are perhaps incapable of seeing them even when they’re explicitly pointed out to you. As I said, that’s your problem, not a problem with a theory that doesn’t assume those premises.

A theory that doesn't conform to the rules of mathematics is rejecting mathematics when it doesn't assume those premises.

...but if the blue guy waits far enough to the left, he’ll suddenly see the red person pop into existence, and simultaneously the red person will see the blue person momentarily ‘defossilize’ and then blink out, which is sort of ‘human erasure’ if you ask me.

Well, you've understood that correctly: that's exactly how the universe would be with GTR and no block - you would hardly ever see anything and practically no interactions would occur.

That doesn’t invoke GR at all.  It is just SRwDA.

It is every Spacetime model. It is the establishment's GTR and STR. It is not my model but theirs. But the models they use in simulations are Spacetime+ models where the plus refers to an absolute time which is banned from GTR and STR, but they have to include it in order to hide the brokenness of their models. The only time they use genuine GTR and STR is in eternal static block universes where they eliminate running time, but whenever they do that they destroy causation and replace it with the most ridiculous amount of luck imaginable.

I have presentism and eternalism both shown at the same time.

Both sides have moving dots, so both sides are presentist. Somehow you don’t see even that much.  Amazing.

Eternalism is being shown by the trails left behind: once the dots are off the screen, you're seeing only eternalism left behind. The difference is though that this eternalism is one with a creation: a running process in which causation has a real role. If you want to eliminate the creation process, causation disappears and is replaced by magic - that is not a place where serious science should have to retreat.

The only difference then (without the dots) is that right side has a preferred foliation (shown in red, and undetectable by any observer) and the left side does not. That’s the only actual difference between GTR and LET.

LET doesn't have the shortened paths to the future through a non-existent "time" dimension, so there is no dividing by 0.5, and no multiplying by 0.5 to correct the event-meshing failures caused by dividing by 0.5.

Your second addition of the moving dots to both sides makes it GRwDA and nLET respectively,

Neither model is mine, and neither of them is any version of LET. The model on the left is every Spacetime model, and the model on the right is every model using both Spacetime and absolute time. Your attempt to hide that reality by giving them incorrect names does not alter the fact that the establishment's models are broken beyond repair.

but it is the red numbers that I’m finding contradictory, not the second addition of the dots. If the red numbers are not contradictory, then neither are the dots that require the red numbers. I have no explicit argument against the dots.

The red numbers come from the proper time of the red twin who is at the same depth in a gravity well as we are. In a more detailed simulation, computer time would be set for anything that's completely outside of all gravity wells, so the red twin's clock would be made to run slow too in the pseudo-GTR simulation, but would tick at the same rate as computer time in the GTR simulation because there is only one kind of time in that model, so they must be the same time.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

...
I don’t see much point in you going over old ground with the SR scenarios, which have been done to death. The bigger question is whether you can take the electrodynamics paper and propose a rigorous alternative which allows accurate transforms and aligns with observations that the laws of electromagnetism are not frame dependent. The big outcome from the electrodynamics paper was the proposal that electric and magnetic fields are not separate, but are different aspects of a single electromagnetic field, can you preserve this or do you have a different proposal. I’m not aware David has got this far, but then I haven’t read his latest material, something I must make time to do.

A light clock roundtrip is one of the best proper time clocks.
A light clock roundtrip in an inertial frame will appear time-dilated in any other moving inertial frame.
Is this statement OK?
Does it leave the SR contradictory regarding the determination of the proper time?
Is the twin paradox still an paradox?
What experiment proves the twin paradox not being a logical contradiction?

[Colin2B]

...
I don’t see much point in you going over old ground with the SR scenarios, which have been done to death. The bigger question is whether you can take the electrodynamics paper and propose a rigorous alternative which allows accurate transforms and aligns with observations that the laws of electromagnetism are not frame dependent. The big outcome from the electrodynamics paper was the proposal that electric and magnetic fields are not separate, but are different aspects of a single electromagnetic field, can you preserve this or do you have a different proposal. I’m not aware David has got this far, but then I haven’t read his latest material, something I must make time to do.

A light clock roundtrip is one of the best proper time clocks.
A light clock roundtrip in an inertial frame will appear time-dilated in any other moving inertial frame.
Is this statement OK?
Does it leave the SR contradictory regarding the determination of the proper time?
Is the twin paradox still an paradox?
What experiment proves the twin paradox not being a logical contradiction?

I don’t see how this answers my question about Einstein’s electrodynamics paper. You’ve obviously read it, but until you explain your problem with Maxwell’s equations, the asymmetry of magnetic and electric fields, and Einstein’s resolution of the problem I don’t see we have a common starting point.
What are your proposals for resolving the problem?

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

...
I don’t see much point in you going over old ground with the SR scenarios, which have been done to death. The bigger question is whether you can take the electrodynamics paper and propose a rigorous alternative which allows accurate transforms and aligns with observations that the laws of electromagnetism are not frame dependent. The big outcome from the electrodynamics paper was the proposal that electric and magnetic fields are not separate, but are different aspects of a single electromagnetic field, can you preserve this or do you have a different proposal. I’m not aware David has got this far, but then I haven’t read his latest material, something I must make time to do.

A light clock roundtrip is one of the best proper time clocks.
A light clock roundtrip in an inertial frame will appear time-dilated in any other moving inertial frame.
Is this statement OK?
Does it leave the SR contradictory regarding the determination of the proper time?
Is the twin paradox still an paradox?
What experiment proves the twin paradox not being a logical contradiction?

I don’t see how this answers my question about Einstein’s electrodynamics paper. You’ve obviously read it, but until you explain your problem with Maxwell’s equations, the asymmetry of magnetic and electric fields, and Einstein’s resolution of the problem I don’t see we have a common starting point.
What are your proposals for resolving the problem?

Colin,
Let me reach for a book, Hertz did it long time ago,
Jano

[David Cooper]

Perhaps we should focus on this issue of Maxwell's equations to try to spell out exactly what role they have in this. They keep being used as justification of the impossible on a basis that doesn't appear to stack up. They contain a distance term which requires you to program in an assumption of being stationary at the start, thereby leading to that assertion being thrown back at you at the end as "confirmation" of being stationary. I've always said that there must be a more competent set of equations waiting to be found which don't just lazily depend on the phenomenon of relativity to make them work, and this book about Hertz suggests that such a set of more competent equations was found in the 1800s, so I'd like to know more about them.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Are the photons of the red 90 degree light beam up comoving with the moving train frame from the platform point of view?

[Kryptid]

It's honestly difficult to understand what you are asking. Based on what you were saying in the other thread, I'm guessing that you are trying to say that the light beam will look like it's traveling at a different speed in a frame that is moving relative to the car than in the frame of the car itself. That's not the case. The speed of light is the same in both frames. The consequence of this is that the light beam is seen to hit the far side of the cart at different times in each frame. In the frame where the light beam has to travel further, it takes longer to traverse the distance and thus will take longer to reach its target. That's relativity of simultaneity.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

It's honestly difficult to understand what you are asking. Based on what you were saying in the other thread, I'm guessing that you are trying to say that the light beam will look like it's traveling at a different speed in a frame that is moving relative to the car than in the frame of the car itself. That's not the case. The speed of light is the same in both frames. The consequence of this is that the light beam is seen to hit the far side of the cart at different times in each frame. In the frame where the light beam has to travel further, it takes longer to traverse the distance and thus will take longer to reach its target. That's relativity of simultaneity.

Correct, the light speed is c in both frames.
The light crosses 1cs' in the train frame in 1s'. The single quote is to reference the moving frame.
The light crosses 2cs in 2s in the platform frame but the light travels under angle in the platform frame.
What is the speed?
The platform view sees the y direction without any contraction therefore it takes 2s to cross 1cs that is equal to 1cs'.
The v_y velocity is c/2 in order to cross 1cs in 2s.
The end result has to be c.
Therefore we have this equation:
c^2 = (c/2)^2 + v^2
v^2 = 0.866c
c^2 = 0.25c^2 + 0.75c^2
c^2 = c^2
The velocity v is comoving/drifting photons with the train car.

When we understand that the time dilation comes from this setup then we can see that v_y = c/gamma is true all the time for any two moving inertial frames.
Point being made by the blue arrow up.
Jano

[hamdani yusuf]

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.

I wonder why no one address this problem? Has anyone encountered similar problem anywhere else?

[Halc]

I wonder why no one address this problem? Has anyone encountered similar problem anywhere else?

There's no problem except for a poorly expressed problem and even more poorly expressed comments below. That's probably why.

Unclear what is depicted.  It shows a pair of elliptical paths that do not intersect, so it isn't really clear how they're going to meet each other.  Presumably the paths are larger and the gap between them is far smaller than depicted.
The picture indicates that Va=Vb suggesting that the two ships always have the same velocity in which case they cannot ever depart from each other's presence. This contradicts the picture which has the paths diverging, and the ships pointing in opposite directions.
It does not seem that the scenario was taken from any legit physics site.

As long as I'm making fun of the errors in the picture, I might as well point out that it assumes the naive Star-Wars rule that ships in space fly like airplanes, pointing in their direction of motion and banking through the turns (and making noise as they go by). In real physics, space ships point in the direction of acceleration, which implies that they should be pointed up and down respectively, not right and left as depicted.

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".

I don't know how either astronaut can determine how long the other guy's clock has been lost, but as long as they find it before they meet, does it really matter?

The paths appear symmetrical, so if the clocks were in sync at the first meeting, they'll still be in sync at each meeting. There's not even the appearance of a paradox to resolve.

...  against causality.

What does this even mean??  How did causality suddenly appear in a discussion otherwise devoid of it? What caused each astronaut to lose his clock for hours? Who can tell?

[hamdani yusuf]

I wonder why no one address this problem? Has anyone encountered similar problem anywhere else?

There's no problem except for a poorly expressed problem and even more poorly expressed comments below. That's probably why.

Unclear what is depicted.  It shows a pair of elliptical paths that do not intersect, so it isn't really clear how they're going to meet each other.  Presumably the paths are larger and the gap between them is far smaller than depicted.
The picture indicates that Va=Vb suggesting that the two ships always have the same velocity in which case they cannot ever depart from each other's presence. This contradicts the picture which has the paths diverging, and the ships pointing in opposite directions.
It does not seem that the scenario was taken from any legit physics site.

As long as I'm making fun of the errors in the picture, I might as well point out that it assumes the naive Star-Wars rule that ships in space fly like airplanes, pointing in their direction of motion and banking through the turns (and making noise as they go by). In real physics, space ships point in the direction of acceleration, which implies that they should be pointed up and down respectively, not right and left as depicted.

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".

I don't know how either astronaut can determine how long the other guy's clock has been lost, but as long as they find it before they meet, does it really matter?

The paths appear symmetrical, so if the clocks were in sync at the first meeting, they'll still be in sync at each meeting. There's not even the appearance of a paradox to resolve.

...  against causality.

What does this even mean??  How did causality suddenly appear in a discussion otherwise devoid of it? What caused each astronaut to lose his clock for hours? Who can tell?

These are what I see from the picture, by assuming that it's a 3D projection onto 2D screen:
Spaceship A move in a circular trajectory in counter clockwise direction with speed v_A.
Spaceship B move in a circular trajectory in clockwise direction with speed v_B. B's trajectory is parallel and coaxial with A's.

The acceleration of the ship depends on the position of the thruster. They can use side thrusters, but let's not add unnecessary complexity to the core problem.

[Colin2B]

Colin,
Let me reach for a book, Hertz did it long time ago,
Jano

Ah, I had hoped you might come up with your own idea.
I am familiar with Thomas Phipps papers, somewhere I have some correspondence with him, but I must have archived it when changing system.

If Galilean invariance was the only problem then Phipps could be correct, but we have to understand the history of these competing theories.
Remember, at this time Lorentz had not yet formulated his ideas on electrons so experiments were performed, for example, with charged spheres and so there appeared to be similarities between electrostatics, magnetism and gravity - all viewed as action at a distance.  Not only at a distance,  but according to Newton, instantaneous action at a distance,  Faraday thought this illogical and today we know he was right, but at the time the consensus was instantaneous at a distance. Riemann and Ludwig Lorenz showed, it was possible to modify action at a distance theories to yield finitely propagating electric waves analogous to light waves, and in constructing their theories both Helmholtz and Hertz followed this path.

Maxwell’s theory wasn’t unique and Helmholtz was trying to determine which of the contending theories was correct. When Hertz was in Karlsruhe he took on Helmholtz’ role and showed that a theoretical decision could be made on the basis of predictions for closed currents; and he proved that Maxwell’s equations were compatible with the physical assumptions shared by all electrodynamic theories and that the equations of the contending theories (including his own) were not. He concluded that if the choice lay solely between Maxwell’s equations and the equations of the other type of theory, then Maxwell’s were clearly preferable (but he still didn’t endorse Maxwell’s physical interpretation of his equations, in particular Maxwell’s denial of action at-a-distance). It was not until after Hertz had turned to the production of electric waves in air, after he had published his first experiments on waves, that he at last dropped Helmholtz’s action at a distance viewpoint and in 1889 he announced that he could describe his results better from Maxwell’s contiguous action viewpoint.

This move away from instantaneous action at a distance is really important and gives us insight into the effect of a charge moving inertially vs an accelerated charge, see https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=77171.msg577138#msg577138

[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.

This is Isaac Asimov's mental experiment.
When A is preferred as the reference frame; according to SR, its clock will run at proper tempo and B's clock will fall behind.

If we use B as the reference frame;, this tim,e A's clock must becöme behind. The clocks are synchronized before starting the movement. Each time in their next meeting, they will perceive the other clock's time   2.x  hours behind its own clock.

The external observer sees both of their clocks equal.

Twins will see the other in the same age. Older, younger are not happened.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

Colin,
Let me reach for a book, Hertz did it long time ago,
Jano

Ah, I had hoped you might come up with your own idea.
I am familiar with Thomas Phipps papers, somewhere I have some correspondence with him, but I must have archived it when changing system.

If Galilean invariance was the only problem then Phipps could be correct, but we have to understand the history of these competing theories.
Remember, at this time Lorentz had not yet formulated his ideas on electrons so experiments were performed, for example, with charged spheres and so there appeared to be similarities between electrostatics, magnetism and gravity - all viewed as action at a distance.  Not only at a distance,  but according to Newton, instantaneous action at a distance,  Faraday thought this illogical and today we know he was right, but at the time the consensus was instantaneous at a distance. Riemann and Ludwig Lorenz showed, it was possible to modify action at a distance theories to yield finitely propagating electric waves analogous to light waves, and in constructing their theories both Helmholtz and Hertz followed this path.

Maxwell’s theory wasn’t unique and Helmholtz was trying to determine which of the contending theories was correct. When Hertz was in Karlsruhe he took on Helmholtz’ role and showed that a theoretical decision could be made on the basis of predictions for closed currents; and he proved that Maxwell’s equations were compatible with the physical assumptions shared by all electrodynamic theories and that the equations of the contending theories (including his own) were not. He concluded that if the choice lay solely between Maxwell’s equations and the equations of the other type of theory, then Maxwell’s were clearly preferable (but he still didn’t endorse Maxwell’s physical interpretation of his equations, in particular Maxwell’s denial of action at-a-distance). It was not until after Hertz had turned to the production of electric waves in air, after he had published his first experiments on waves, that he at last dropped Helmholtz’s action at a distance viewpoint and in 1889 he announced that he could describe his results better from Maxwell’s contiguous action viewpoint.

This move away from instantaneous action at a distance is really important and gives us insight into the effect of a charge moving inertially vs an accelerated charge, see https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=77171.msg577138#msg577138

If the SR is reciprocal then it leads to delta in coordinate times based on the observers.
This means that different observers do not agree on a proper time of a world line.
If observers do not agree on the world line proper time they do not have time for any equations, partial or full time derivatives.
You twisted the logic, requesting something about some equations but we do not have time for these equations.

I don’t see how this answers my question about Einstein’s electrodynamics paper. You’ve obviously read it, but until you explain your problem with Maxwell’s equations, the asymmetry of magnetic and electric fields, and Einstein’s resolution of the problem I don’t see we have a common starting point.
What are your proposals for resolving the problem?

What I am saying there is no problem till the proper time is settled.
The Einstein's paper starts with time not the electrodynamics.
I am questioning the time solution first.
Jano