I don't really care this thread was demoted to alternative theories because the only person I was interested in brain picking was Janus58.
I'm glad I got out, then, because it is clear I was wasting my time on you.
However I do object to being accused of misrepresenting SR and would like to see some evidence that I misrepresented it.
We only have to look back one page in the thread to find one example, and there are many more like this:
Despite Einstein's attempt to establish a present based on perspective, there are only 2 instances in SR that are a true shared present without delay.
The concept of a "true shared present" does not exist in SR, other than in the notion of simultaneity in a particular frame.
You claim that there are two distinct concepts of simultaneity: the "true shared present", represented by your mistaken belief that proper times in different frames are comparable to one another, and "perspective simultaneity", which is your own dismissive term what was is actually rigorously defined as "simultaneity" in special relativity.
One is when two clocks are side by side either stopped or moving past each other. The other comes from the main equation in SR (ct′)2=(ct)2−x2(ct′)2=(ct)2−x2(ct')^2 = (ct)^2 - x^2 that establishes hyperbolic lines that intersect all velocity lines at the same present time.
There are many misrepresentations of relativity here. The first one is this idea of a "main equation". If SR has to have a "main equation" at all, the Lorentz transformation equations would be the best candidate for that, because all of the other results of SR are derivable from them. But the Lorentz transformations themselves are derived - from the postulates of SR. There are only two: the constancy of the speed of light in different inertial frames, and the invariance of the laws of physics in different inertial frames.
I spent a number of posts explaining the spacetime interval to you, including providing you with a proof of the invariance of the interval in different frames. Obviously, all of that went in one ear and out the other, for you, because here you are, pages and pages later, still spouting off about one "special case" of the more general relationship, and erroneously referring to that as the "main equation" of relativity.
The fact is: you don't even seem to be aware of what a reference frame is. You appear to think that there are certain special frames that give a "more real" picture of what is happening. You are apparently unable to understand what happens when we transform a spacetime diagram from one frame to another, except in very limited cases, which is why you think that SR is "broken" when it comes to doing that. Your "Loedel lines" don't actually mean anything useful; as we previously established, only the end points actually represent anything physical, and even there they only do the simplest numerical comparison between two clock readings.
Einstein didn't know if atoms existed let alone atomic clocks and their universal accuracy that did not require sync.
Einstein wrote his PhD thesis on Brownian motion, which was based on a belief that atoms existed. His theoretical explanation of that effect explicitly relied on an atomic theory of matter.
Atomic clocks are not "universally accurate", and they do require synchronisation. Einstein's synchronisation method for clocks in any given frame is a rigorous method for reliably synchronising clocks. In contrast, you apparently have no method for synchronising spatially separated clocks in a single reference frame.
----
ralfcis said:
I disagree with its math and its explanation of the facts but I never disagreed with any of the facts and it would be counter productive for me to set up straw man arguments against relativity. For example c constant from all perspectives is a fact but time dilation and length contraction are just devices to explain those facts.
You claim to agree with the postulates of SR - or at least with the speed of light postulate (probably you don't understand the significance or importance of the other one). But you then go on immediately to disagree with basic results that follow rigorously from those postulates. That is a hopelessly inconsistent position for you to hold.
As I noted previously, your own ideas are completely dependent on piggy-backing on the mathematics of special relativity. Every correct result you derive is found by using the mathematics of special relativity. Nevertheless, you spend almost all your time pretending you've invented a superior theory all of your own.
It is very clear that you're uninterested in learning the actual science. You're stuck your own constrained little world, with its mistaken idea of a "true shared present" - a world that can only really handle a handful of limited special-case situations from special relativity, and then only by misinterpreting what the mathematics is saying.