Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by MacM, Oct 11, 2004.

?

Do You Agree or Disagree that the conclusions of James R's thread are misleading?

13.6%

68.2%

0 vote(s)
0.0%

18.2%
1. CrispGone 4everRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,339
This thread reminds me why exactly I left.

Having said that, goodbye to y'all -- still!

3. James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,655
MacM,

Since you choose not to answer my questions, you have chosen to shut down this conversation.

I will no longer contribute to this thread.

5. DinosaurRational SkepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,858
MacM: Obscenity is the last resort of those frustrated by being wrong and unwilling to give up. Why not just admit that your beliefs are faith based like religious faith rather than being based on logical conclusions from supporting evidence? It is not a crime to have faith based beliefs. I probably have a few. Being an atheist, I probably have less than most people.

I will not quote the obscene ad hominem attacks on James R. They speak very loudly without being repeated. I cannot help but comment on the following post by you.
You are apparently unaware that relativist time contraction (dilation, whatever) effects have been observed. All the obfuscation you attempt with various clock scenarios does not refute hard evidence resulting from various experiments. As posted by James R. many times, you do not understand enough about relativity and the supporting evidence to refute it or develop a viable replacement for it.

It is a waste of time to try to change the faith based view of people like MacM, but it sometimes seems worthwhile to try to affect the view of others who might be misled by him.

It amazes me that many intelligent people believe that mainstream physicists are either charlatans or fools (MacM is only one such). If there were glaring errors in Relativity, some mainstream physicist would have pointed them out in a peer reviewed journal and been given a Noble prize. Relativity has survived for almost 100 years. Feynman, Hawking, Penrose, or even lesser minds would surely have noticed a problem if people like MacM had valid criticisms.

Relativity will likely be replaced by a better theory, but it will never be shown to have the glaring errors claimed by the likes of MacM and other fanatics. When modern physics replaced Newtonian Physics, it was not due to glaring errors. Newtonian Physics was shown to be not applicable to conditions beyond the knowledge and measurement technology of those who developed its laws. Its laws could not be extrapolated beyond certain limits into territory unkown prior to the twentieth century. NASA still uses Newtonian gravitational equations for its space program, and nobody makes relativistic time/distance corrections for any but the most extreme situations. Similarly Relativity will never be shown to be incorrect. It will only be shown that its laws cannot be extrapolated beyond certain limits, as was the case for Newtonian Physics.

7. MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Lets get something straight. Obsenities have nothing to do with the concept but were in reply to his unwarranted and false innuendos as well as a poor habit of calling people a liar. I do not lie. I have not lied and he knows it.

It is evidence in fact of his poor position and inability to properly respond to the question at hand.

As far as Relativity goes you can have your opinion but much of what you say is in fact just plain false. You are another that seem to believe H&K is proof. It has been shown to be totally unsupported in its claims and quite likely outright deliberate fraud.

In closing I will also note that you have failed to provide anything of substance to the question at hand. Talk is cheap. Proof another matter.

What evidence for Relativity there is has alternative explanations but that is not at issue here either. The only thing at issue here is the reciprocity mandated by Relativity which nullifies any net time dilation.

You are correct in that your view is recorded in our text books; however, it is my view that is recorded by clocks. I'll believe what I see and is supported mathematically and not what is nothing more than claimed by extrapolation of mathematical theory which actually remains untested with positive results.

Above he now withdraws claiming I have refused to answer his questions. That is a red herring. I have not declined to answer anything that had merit to this issue. He has tried to interject other issues and questions in a fishing trip expedition to find something that I couldn't answer or got wrong so as to make claim that the issue at hand is a result of my lack of understanding.

He and Pete have both ultimately, after many months of evasive responses to this issue, admitted my claims of net null time dilation is true. James even agreed that for a clock to show time dilation due to relative velocity alone violates Relativity.

But both steadfastly refuse to go the final step and admit the phenomena must therefore be perception and not physical reality. That is OK. It is thier perogative but it is also a far cry from the assertions you make here that I am a lost soul that does not understand Relativity.

Pete and I disagree but Pete has posted some excellent material, it just doesn't resolve the issue in the manner he seems to believe that it does. You don't see me cursing him. Why because he has not committed the atrocious conduct James R wrongfully seems to think bolsters his standing in the debate.

Last edited: Oct 13, 2004
8. PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
Mac, these statements are either lies or self-delusion.
Either way, they are falsehoods.

9. MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
How can you make this statement.? Are you denying that you agreed that the A-B and B-A are equal and equate to "0" but that you then continued on to say but it is meaningless?

Or that James said this:

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3356&stc=1

Now my statements are factual. They are neither a lie nor a dilusion. If you did not mean to say what you said then clarify but don't flip-flop and then claim it is my doing and you didn't say what you said. If you like I will go back and link to your statement.

10. PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
No. I'm denying that after many months of evasive responses to this issue, I admitted your claims of net null time dilation are true.

There were no months of evasive response to that issue, because you only formulated it a short time ago. You appear to be mixing concepts in your head.

Your claims regarding your meaningless concept of "net null time dilation" are not something I agreed to.

This assertion is particularly serious.
James did not agree to that statement.
There was a misunderstanding at the time, which has been explained to you.
For you to continue to make that assertion is either a deliberate falsehood, or self delusion.

Side thought:
How can one tell if one is suffering a delusion?

Last edited: Oct 13, 2004
11. MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
I'll limit my responses to only three.

1 - I have asserted for over 1 1/2 years here from day one that time dilation of clocks was a false concept. I can not understand your comment to the contrary.

2 - If you or James did not mean what you said (I have merely quoted James R's response and paraphrased yours), then it is up to you and he to clarify what you meant. It is not fair for you to assert I have misquoted or mis-stated your views. They are in writting as part of the record.

I certainly have no objection to somebody clarifying something that is or can be mis-interpreted but I do object to putting the blame on the reader that makes that interpretation of such satements.

3 - I suggest the best gage of delusion would be to have something which is clearly testable and not merely subjectively open to interpretation. In that regard let me point out James R, recent proclamation in QQ's thread:

This is a most obvious outright flaw of mental process.

Wheels rotate and power a speedometer. The driver of a car sees his speedometer read 100 Mph. The motorcycle cop behind the bill board with a high power camera will record a picture of your speedometer as indicating 100 Mph and the state trooper's cruiser that pulls up along side telling you to pull over looks through your window as he slowly passes you to cut you off and force you to stop, sees your speedometer as indicating 100 Mph.

Each of these views are frame dependant and none see anything but 100 Mph indicated on your speedometer. Clearly the wheel's Rpm have not altered as a function of relative velocity of frames as is being suggested by James.

This is a proveable, and obvious test done at a variety of speeds millions of times each day. Now this situation is directly applicable to other relavistic issues and claims. If wheel Rpm does not change with relative velocity it becomes clear that issues of contraction, etc are mathematical artifacts and not physical realities.

Just as with clocks you have perception and you have reality, the two are not the same. It seems the issue of who is dillusional is most proveable.

Thanks.

Last edited: Oct 13, 2004
12. DinosaurRational SkepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,858
Give up fellows: MacM is the way and the truth and the light of the world. He has finally shown that Einstein and all the great minds of the twentieth century who accepted relativity were either deluded or part of a vast conspiracy to suppress the UniKEF theory brilliantly conceived by MacM.

I wonder if now he might deign to enlighten us on the errors inherent in Quantum theory. Now that he has shown Einstein to be a nut, why not put down Bohr, Heisenberg, et all?

13. PeteIt's not rocket surgeryRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,166
Your "net null time dilation" concept is newly introduced.

It is up to you to read those clarifications and not ignore them.
They are in writing as part of the record.

Dealt with in the appropriate thread.

14. MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
False. Perhaps I have changed wording to better describe the affect but the original 3 Clock Paradox, and every post since, then have claimed time dilation is an illusion of motion and not physical reality. That means "Net Null Time Dilation".

I don't recall any clarification which address the statement. I recall the agreement but then a subjective statement that it was meaningless. That hardly qualifies as clarification.

15. MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Funny, I don't recall saying anything about UniKEF or its underlying concepts regarding these issues. The fact is UniKEF does contain time dilation.

So stick it in your smart ass ear.

16. SilasasimovbotRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,116
From the stationary policeman the wheels appear to be moving slightly slower (ie revolutions per stationary policeman's second) than they are from the point of view of the policeman on the motorcycle. The reason is that time is running slower for the cycle-cop.

Er, I don't believe that tests done at 100mph would yield usable results. The time dilation must be so miniscule as to be unmeasurable, certainly by human consciousness. Please don't tell me that you're basing your belief on the fact that real stationary policemen and cycling policemen see the same speed!!
Well, sure if time dilation, spatial contraction and Special Relativity are false, then sure. But they are not false, and wheel rpm does change with relative velocity.

Anyway, my response was that JamesR's thread wasn't misleading, although it was as boring as hell. Isn't there any way at all to explain time dilation without those tedious equations? I got lost after the third line.

17. MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Your input is appreciated. We concur that it is easier to discuss the issue philosophically than it is mathematically and I certanly agree that making my case at 100 Mph is less than impressive.

I draw your atention however to the following thread and post where the case is made (I believe) at 0.9c. If true then your conclusions are false.

[post=695075]Time Dilation Analysis[/post]

Last edited: Oct 14, 2004
18. DinosaurRational SkepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,858
Silas: Unfortunately, one must deal with equations for almost all explanations of the laws of physics. Intuition and human sensory perceptions are just not reliable enough to deal with most aspects of modern physics.

Our perceptions are just not accurate enough and our intuition is incorrect for many situations.

Sometimes even what you correctly measure can be misleading without some careful analysis. For example.
• Parallax methods can accurately measure the distance to a star one light year away (if there was such a star).
• Suppose a super nova or some other explosive event resulted in ejected material traveling toward the Earth at 11/12 the speed of light. A telescope could allow observation of such an event.
• The event would be seen from Earth 12 months after it occurred, at which time, the ejected material would be 1/12 of a light year from earth.
• About 33 days after the event was observed, ejected material (radiation, particles, whatever) would enter our atmosphere and be noticed.
• If it were known that the observed material was due to the event at the star, a naive person might conclude that the material traveled faster than the speed of light. After all, it arrived 33 days after the event which happened one light year away.

Messages:
429
20. geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Actually I saw not not one bit of physics or science in your post. You brandish your atheism as a badge of truth and honor. I am reminded of Matthew 6:1 quoting Jesus: "Take good care not to practice your righteousness in front of men in order to be observed by them them, ..."

Can I trust your honesty? Can I believe ,with at least the faith of a man willing to take you at face value? You seem to deny possibilities of any glaring erors in SR, not by a discussion of the physics ,that I assume you support, but by frawing over pesonalities tou toss at us with a casual flick of your unbiased atheistic heart. Your post said to me that glaring errors are an impossibility, but I also gleaned from the post that you, dinaoaur would be able to identify a glaring error when you saw one, and that if you did discover such a gap in SR theory that you would not hesitate for a single dilated second in broadcasting such to humankind, who waits with calm patience for good oh messages from a man such as yourself.

Well let me tell you, I am such a mainstream physicist, and I catagorically deny any resemblance of being on any recogniozable level of theoretical expertise in SR theory with the names you mentioned. Further I cagtagorically deny having ever made an attempt to publish any glaring errors of SR theory in any mainstream physics journals. Mr. Dinosaur, if you had some information that established a glaring error in the claims of the divinity of Mr. Jesus, would you write a letter to the Pope with any expectation that he would stand up to the world and declare that "we've made a horrible mistake." and then give the orders to all the piriests and nuns and bishops to "pack it in and lock it up folks, and I'm outta here" ?

The equivalence of inertial frames holds that the measure of light speed will always be C from whatever frame of reference used and this is independent of the relative motion of the source of the light and the observer; Some simple comparisons of the physical properties of two commonly used reference frames in theoretical studies, the embankment, AKA the planet earth, Ve, and the passenger train(s), Vn may be helpful.

Inertia does mean to you
1. "the resistace to change" I presume
2. and that the inertia of one reference frame that is effectively infinite with respect to another could not be considered as an equivalent inertial frame with the lesser inertial object.

Further, I have to believe
1. that a massive object that was moving in a trajectory that was measurably indistinguishable from straight line motion for the purpose of any SR theopretical reasons,
2. where all significant past present and future coordinate points on the surface and volume of the major inertial frame are predictable to any degree of resolution or accuracy desired,
3. that virtually all Vn inertial reference frames, n = 1, 2 ... inf, must necessarily undergo acceleration in order that any relative motion Ve - Vn > 0 be observed by any observer and
4. that that the non-accelerated, or acceleratable, infinitely massive, invariant straight-line and uniform motion is void of any scientific history of any observed, detected, felt, measured or even sensed or intuited acclerated motion in the SR sense,
5. and with a scientific history of having not the slightest physical possibility of ever being observed to varied the described motion
6. and that the only way a Vn object, an inertial frame of reference once achieving a velocity Vn > Ve can ever be deemed "at rest" with respect to the Ve frame is for the Vn frame to stop.

Some physical attributes of Ve are:
1. Mass (grams): 5 x 10^27.
2. Volume (km^3) = 1.09 x 10^12
3. . Surface area (km^2) = 5.11 x 10^8.
4. circumference (km) = 40047.
5. escape velocity = 11.2.
6. Gravity acceleration (cm/sec^2) = 980
7. Velocity components (km/sec).
• rotation. = .496
• orbital velocity = 29.8
• solar (galactic) 208
• Circumference km 6378
• Turning rate degrees/sec 10^-8.
8. Some scaled down solar system numbers:
• sun diameter 109 cm.
• earth orbit radius 233 meters
• Pluto at 9 km
• Mercury at 87 meters.
9. There are no measured affects on Ve due to the intrinsic motion of Ve. such as observed in Vn when rolling over distorted and worn tracks,
10. The prediction of coordinates for any location f oposition for past, present and future surface and volume locations is as exact as conditions demand.
11. Ve overwhelmingly exceeds the inertia of any other Vn frame(s) in inertial mas,
12. that this alone is sufficient to grant Ve official “preferred frame of reference status”, whether liked or not.
13. All Ve surface borne frames of reference inherit all the attributes of Ve motion and,
14. from the foregoing, all observed Vn - Vw > 0 relative motion, Vn necessarily accelerated to acquire Vn > 0 and hence any assumption that Vn = 0 with respect to Ve thereafter is a proved physical impossibility.
15. all Ve based references frames Vn, for all n, all necessarily suffer acceleration in order to create a state of relative velocity.
16. Vn can only claim Vn = 0 under the conditions that Ve - Vn = 0.
17. Ve never is observed to aquire motion other than that described above.

If this were a reas0onably coherent post, with reasonablyaccurate offerings of factual reality, would the level of the light thrown on the subject matter rise to the relative level of "glaring", in your opinion? You do know, don't you that Richard Feynman has given up the ghost (in the machine) and that he is Deceased?

21. PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
MacM, did you have a kid recently? You old dog.

Time to sue Viagra for pain and suffering.

22. DinosaurRational SkepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,858
GeistKeisel: You seized on the following posted by me and seemed to have read far more into my statements than intended.
Did the above deserve the following?
Following are my comments on the last part of the above from your post.
• While I believe in the neither the divinity of Christ nor the existence of god, I have no expectation of ever finding compelling evidence or a proof relating to such issues. Faith based belief rather than proof is all that any intelligent atheist or intelligent believer can ever hope to have. I believe that observable evidence is consistent with (not a proof of) my atheist view, and a religious person similarly believes that the observable evidence supports his view.
• If I thought I thought I had evidence refuting some issue of Christian (or some other) theology, I would not expect it to be accepted by the leaders of a religious sect. I would not waste my time presenting any such evidence. The only time I ever argue with those who believe in some religion is when they insist on trying to convert me.
• I consider the analogy silly. Unlike a religious leader, I would expect a mainstream scientist to be swayed by valid evidence. If knowledgeable physicists did not accept my arguments, I would assume that I had done a bad job of presenting it or that there was some error in my conclusions.
I have not posted much (if any) physics or science to this thread. James R and others have done an excellent job of providing arguments counter to MacM beliefs, if not at this thread, then at others.

It is my opinion that MacM either ignores or does not understand the arguments of those who have a credible knowledge of SR/GR, making it a waste of time to argue with him on these issues. I remember arguing with him in a lengthy thread about an illusion relating to apparent motion, and I think I have argued with him to no avail on other occasions.

Many, many years ago, I managed to pass an undergraduate which included SR. I remember being convinced by the logic supporting the mathematics of the Lorentz transformation calculations, but felt that the implications were counter intuitive. Since then, I have seldom had the patience to make a detailed analysis of discussions of SR.

SR has been accepted for about 100 years. I just do not think that thought experiments involving twin journeys, or multiple clocks or other simple scenarios could show that there is something wrong with the theory. Something far more subtle and difficult to comprehend will be required.

Mainstream physicists are neither charlatans nor fools. There is a lot of evidence supporting SR. For example, check the article at the following URL.
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.v.../michelson.html The following can be found there if you read far enough into the article.
Whatever one might think is implied/proven by the M/M experiment, all sorts of evidence seems to support various SR concepts derived from Einstein’’s interpretation of that experiment. In modern times experiments have verified that the counterintuitive results obtained via use of Lorentz Transformation calculations are valid. Objects moving at relativistic speeds act as though time and distance variables are different for them than for the stationary observer. All the arguments involving the twin paradox and other clock experiments are basically an argument relating to the validity of the Lorentz Transformation calculations.

Either the Lorentz Transformation calculations are valid or they are not. The experimental evidence supports the Lorentz Transformation calculations. Verbal descriptions of various clock experiments accompanied by different calculations disagree with those calculations, but can be made consistent with intuitive notions. I accept the mathematics and the opinions of experts rather than my intuition.

23. geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471

If I offended you about your atheist beliefs I see now how irrelevant it all was. I just have this thing about beliefs in general, and how they really have no place in any scientific discussion. I am not familiar with MacM and your discussion with him, but you must realize that in a balck and white discussion, openly one color can win.
• I sense a weakness in your basic train of thought regarding SR as you discuss he the Lorentz ransformation, various clock experiments and so on without giving any details. The weakness is your analyzing SR from the points of view of more popular and morecomplex examples where the basics get lost or omitted and rote robotics kicks in and all we hear are the machinery of cranking formulae..
• I mean popular belief as opposed to getting down to the nitty gritty and looking at the motions of everything and the basic postulates before one starts cranking out formulae.The fact that light travels at 300000 km/sec and that its is independent of the source of the light isn't such a difficult topic to comprehend and as to me, it has absolutely nothing to do with SR. You seem not lost, but focused on a level, that is to my obervation, mentally restricting. One caught up in the in the complex detail of the structured theory and apply the same to sohpisticated examples of real life even, tend to have had ones instincts or desire even to scrutinize the fundamental bases of SR. I am overstating a bit I admit, but as sophisticated the mathematics of "higher " SR topic is, the theory always depends on the validity of the basic assumptions and postulates. For instance if the concept of "equivalent inertial frames" was to go away, so would SR.
• I want to focus your attention on a basic matter, that while SR is ultimately involved in the, the discussion is not tied to SR specifically. The matter is the very question of inertia, or the resistance to change, which is a reality in our universe. Twenty metric tons of lead sitting on the ground has a larger, or higher inertia, than a bucket of water, to be extreme.
• Now, for all intents and purposes a 10^6 cubic meter chunk of lead is infinite, inertia wise with respect to most inertial frames and the lead and most other inertial frames are therefore not equivalent, far from it. A bicycle rider moving past our hunk of lead spread over a kilometer or two is used as the cyclist's frame of reference from which he measures velocity. Let us construct the usual SR paramteters at this point and assume the cyclist has no information that he is moving and as someone told him that he and cycle were equivalent inertial frames he used the usual SR construct and assumed hhe was at rest with respect tot he hunk of lead and that it was the lead that was moving.
• You and I have to agree on one matter here that is a slam dunk physical reality, which is, that the hunk of lead will never accelerate in any fashion; that any assumption the cyclist has with regard to that acceleration being the contrary to what I just included you as accepting with me: The lead ain't never gonna accelerate as a hunk of lead, ever. Whatever theoretical value the cyclists putting himself at rest, it was the cyclist and the cyclist alone that accelerated and to deny his own motion and to ascribe his real accelerated motion to the hunk of lead is a mathematical manipulation, void of physical reality. But then so was the Ptolemaic system of circles within circles that was as accurate a predictor of stellar motion as one was willing to juggle circles around. Ptolemaic astronomy worked ,within the limits of the system.

• So what, some will say, including yourself perhaps, when you think of a number of experiments that you (an others) claim as supporting SR. Let me give an example. I posted an anaysis of a gedanken experiment where a photon was emitted at the midpont of two reflectors moving on a frame and where my calculations by laboriously following each reflection and time sequence of the whole process came to an understanding why the moving and stationary frame would measure a different time for the emission and arrival at the source simultaneously. For the stationary frame the question is trival as the round trip of the photons was the same as was the time each photon took to get reflected back to the midpoint. In the post it looked like the same answer would inevitably show up. Sure enough when one adds and subtracts the distances of the moving frame the deifferences seemed to all add up to the same time for the round trip. Except, for one little experimental fact.
Code:
|L________________M__________________R|
assume motion to the right, velocity = v and the photon emitted left will arrive at the left reflector before the photon on the aright arrives at the reflector there.

Code:
|  L|<--------------0--M----------------->  |  R|
Above 0 measures the point of emission of the photons, which remains invariant.the space where the L is located, is vt and you can see he right photon is 2vt from the reflector there.
• Just as an argument now I am going to use the postulates of light that what ever else is true photons move the same absolute distance in equal times and that he moions of light ae independent of the motion of the source. Therefore, even if the frame is moving the point where the photons were emitted is a phyisical invariant fact. Now as we already know the answer, that the photons arrived simultaneously, at the very same midpoint from which they were emitted, we also know that in the final rush to the midpoint the instant the photons were moving toward each other, their mutiual midpoint was already defined, before the frame moved into that position of simultaneous arrival of frame and photons.
• Here however, let us not forget the motion, with repsect to the photons that is. As the halfway point was defined, it is also true that up until the instant of mutual arrival of frame and photon the photon moving the same direction as the frame was always closer to the midpoint than was the photon moving in collision course with the midpoint, at this juncture than is.
• Now remember that the photon moving in the direction of motion originally was closier to the midpoint for that first open bit of motion. The photon moving against the motion was moving away from the source, but so was the photon moving in the same direction as the frame, but the "going away" was slower than the photon actually moving in the opposite direction. As the photon moving against the motion originally when emitted, is now moving with the motion and is in the same position the photon originallty emitted in the direction of the motion was up againt and that was chasing the reflector now in the position of the midpoint.
• When the photon moving against the motion moved the same distance back in the direction of the midpoint it traveled the same distance in the same time it moved after being emitted. This of course is the original location of the midpoint as maintained, not by the stationary frame Ve coordinate system, but by the point of emission of the photons. The motion of light is independent of the motion of the source, hence the invariant point of simultaneous emission of the photons is nothing more than a photon not moving with respect to the source. This isn't a gedunken assumption. If the photon source position is defined invariantly then the frame of reference defined by the emission point is at absolute rest, Vc = 0. This isn't saying the speed of light goes to zero, this says the point defining the emission point is nothing more than the photons moving in a straight line. When the photon chasng the frame reached the original midpoint the actual midpoint had moved the distance 2vt wher the t is the same time the light took to move from the midpoint to reflector and back to the midpoint or 2ct.
• Of course, the phtons were equal distant to the final position of the midpoint which was just the distance 2vt away, When the following photon, catching up, moves through the final distabnce 2vt the frame also moves a tiny bit farther than the distance 2vt. At the same time the photon in collision course is bearing down from the opposite direction where the distance between the midpoint and the photon decreased. For the collision course the relative distance traveled was t2(C- V) and for the photon now catching up the relative velocity was t2(C + V). In both cases V is negative and therefore the first expression is t2(C - (-v) = t2(C +v) and in the catching up case the distance traveled was t2(C + (- v)) = t2(C- v). looking at these at the same time we see
t2(C + v)
t2(C - v)
• From two separate motions where each photon is in the process of catching up to the reflector, or frame that is just 2vt away the expressions are identical, naturally. We know the distance traveled by the catching up photon is ct2, the ime it takes the frame to move vt2 the photon moves 2vt + vt2 which after some manipulation,
• t2 = t(2v)/(C - v). This tells us that if t2 > 0 then the motion of the frame is guaranteed. If t2 = 0 then v = 0, the frame is stationary, absolutely, not with respect to the Ve stationary frame, but with respect to the coordinate frame set by the invariant position of the emitted photons. This is all using the independence of the motion of the photon and source.
• I said, above, in other words, that the observer's consideration of frame at rest has been removed as an option to consider.
• I thought I had had overloaded you with a "glaring example of a defect in SR" in my previous post, but I saw no reference to that in your post. Is there some reason you haven' responded to my post regarding the equivalence of inertial frames?