AA. Length is invariant, time does not slow in time dilation, perspectives are mirages, there is a universal proper time that beats within every frame in agreement with the principle of relativity, MMX is explained not by a lack of medium but by a lack of material medium to which there can be no relative velocity, light messages can establish times between frames so that and the universal accuracy of atomic clocks obsolete Einstein's clock sync method, there is a basic graphical building block that can be stitched together with light messages to explain all experimental results without the rules behind spacetime paths, permanent age difference in the twin paradox is created by an imbalance in relative velocity, reciprocal time dilation as defined in SR is the true paradox, time does not beat at different rates between frames, it is merely re-formatted by proper relativity of simultaneity. There are no frame rotations, only slopes of velocity lines the most important of them being Yv and the Loedel line of simultaneity. Is that enough for now?What are your core physical assumptions, which replace or alter the ones from special relativity?

There are no coordinate frame rotations so there are no Lorentz transforms. The ct'-axis represents 3 overlapping velocity lines (v,Yv and v_t) depending on the labelling of the units.Your ct' axis is a rotated axis, despite the fact that you claim your framework has no rotated axes.

I use c=x/t from both perspectives. SR also uses c=x'/t' which I don't use because I have no x'.If not, how is the constancy of the speed of light maintained between frames (assuming that is an axiom)?

Yv=x/t'which velocity are you talking about?

They don't.If the two observers are moving at constant velocities at all times (or one is stationary and the other is moving at constant non-zero velocity), how could it be the case that each one measures the other's speed to be different?

We agree on the distance, we agree that our clocks run at the same rate but we disagree on when we start or stop measuring our time duration.The external observer's clock will keep running past when the car has finished covering the agreed upon distance. Relativity of simultaneity makes it impossible to agree when the time trial started or ended so the observer's clock records extra time that is irrelevant to the time trial.you see me driving at 60 km/hr, but I see you moving backwards at 75 km/hr, for instance.

Depends on which stopwatch you wish to measure c because they differ on when the measurement started or stopped. v is measured by Bob's clock and Yv is measured by Alice's clock (both tick at the same universal rate but start and stop at different times). c is a velocity so it is also subject to a factor of Bob's c but it is not Y and I haven't yet worked out the math of what that factor is (probably some form of DSR). This doesn't mean either c is anything but c but there's no denying that c chasing Alice will chase her longer and farther than c returning to Bob. The Epstein diagram handles this by changing the slopes of c so this indicates to me a mathematical way around no velocity can be added or subtracted from c (hence its universal constancy) but there's still a need to somehow express the relative velocity has some marked influence on c that does not involve compromising its universal constancy.which makes the speed of light variable between frames.

not correctSo you're trying to replace relativity by an alternative theory in which distances are absolute, but time changes between frames, which makes the speed of light variable between frames.

yesWould one of your postulates be "distances are absolute", then?

Except Lorentz transforms are not required so there's that.Lorentz transformations show that such a concept is required.

That stems from the hyperbolic lines generated by the main equation intersecting all velocity lines at the same proper times.Your own diagrams use different time scales on the t and t' axes. Why is that?

Illusions are mirages. it looks like water but there is no water. It looks like time slows but it ticks at the same rate within every frame. Perspective causes the illusion. SR defines perspective as reality and the reality of past, present and future as illusion because of SR's wrong assumption.I don't really know what you mean. Maybe we can unpack that claim later.

I can see why you're having so much trouble with this. It is so drastically different from how SR explains experimental results both philosophically and mathematically. It's so different I don't think anyone will ever understand it. You're about the only person who has even tried so far and I'm being so mean.

Last edited: