Relativity and simple algebra II

You're right that two observers in different frames won't always agree on which of two events happened first, or whether they both happened simultaneously
I'm not talking about the spacelike, timelike and lightlike spacetime paths and causality. In my Md, Bob and Alice are programmed to send a light signal at t=2 (proper time on their on-board clocks). From a Loedel perspective, those two events are simultaneous (and at the same proper time no less). From Alice's perspective, her signal is sent at t'=2 but Bob's signal is sent at t'=2.5 according to her line of perspective simultaneity so her signal is first. From Bob's perspective the opposite is true by the same amount of time (.5 yrs.) Where relativity failed, is to say it can't make a call who sent the signal first where it's obvious from the Loedel perspective that both were simultaneous and it's also obvious from each perspective because they both agree their signal was sent .5 yrs earlier than the other guy's. This hysteresis of perspective can only point to one conclusion, both were simultaneous to both of them because the time difference was the same from both perspectives. A call can be made but Einstein decreed perspective trumps the Newtonian concept of a universal present. But he ignored relativity has an underlying universal proper time present that is not like the Newtonian one. He relegated relativity's present to co-located clocks, such as when Bob and Alice re-unite in the twin paradox. But the Loedel perspective shows that the underlying universal proper time present exists even when the clocks are separated and is what defines causality and an order to events that is independent of perspective. Two opposite views from two different perspectives are not both right. Reality is not subjective even though it's not always readily apparent. His decree is irredeemably flawed but that isn't even the worst assumption he made. Is that brave enough? Release the hounds!
Last edited:
Can you not see the difference between how I slowly separated the clocks at a constant velocity that was maintained during the measurement and how he moved one clock and stopped it?
That (slowly separated the clocks at a constant velocity - slowly) was covered at about the 10 min 40 sec mark to about 11 min 40 sec

OOps, I apologize for my rudeness. I did not bother to see the rest of the video which I am watching now and will comment as I go through it.
I'm at the part about Einstein's clock sync where he uses light to sync clocks used to measure the speed of light. The problem is Einstein didn't know about atoms let alone atomic clocks. They keep proper time without any need for syncing except initially when co-located and set to the same time. They lose sync if moved predictably according to the math of relativity and tests can be performed to verify that math is correct. Quoting Einstein here is about as relevant as saying we can never break the 100 mph barrier because horses just can't travel that fast. His clock sync method actually taints all of his philosophy about the facts of relativity and is the main reason we still blindly believe to this day that it's impossible to measure the one way speed of light.

Ok I got to the part you're talking about, it's still nothing like what I'm talking about. He still stops the clocks causing permanent age difference and he doesn't use the Loedel perspective which cancels out the effects of time dilation (which doesn't exist as time slowing except in Einstein's philosophy) . He's still stuck on Einstein's clock sync method instead of trusting in the universal accuracy of atomic clocks which according to the principle of relativity must tick at the same time rate in all frames.

However I do agree, especially when you do my math of the twin paradox, that it's impossible to tell what is your rate of time through time if you're measuring it against the rate of time of your fellow participant. Within your frame you think you're going at the normal rate of v_t=c during the time of relative velocity imbalance but my math shows you are going at a rate of DSRc which is many times the normal rate but you can't detect it because DSR from Bob is not reciprocal at this point. In fact, relativity depends on you thinking time passes at the normal rate when actually you are accomplishing a lot less tasks during the velocity imbalance period. It's like when you get older time seems to be flying by faster yet you have no way to prove this except by remembering how long summers were when you were a kid. Anyway that whole discussion of how fast time really passes during the time of velocity imbalance will be mathematically handled in the future of this thread.

It's a good video to prove that a philosophical explanation of the facts should not be confused with the experimental results. I wonder if they could break my Loedel solution to the question of one way speed of light because, if not, it would prove my philosophical interpretation of relativity actually matches the experimental results better than Einstein's philosophy does. Good conclusion on his part about not trusting philosophy as gospel because that's what relativity has become, an orthodox unquestionable religion and all heretics must be burned at the stake.
Last edited:
As a further clarification in the lab set up with the light being set to go off from the central Loedel stationary frame to both clocks would cancel out his directional fears as the light would be going both directions from the center. In fact, the separation of the clocks could be any speed as it could easily be calculated when the central light should go off to hit the moving clocks at a particular separation. Hence each clock would only need to verify it gets the light at t=4 when the center clock sends out the light (in all directions) at t=2.8284 adjusted by Y between the stationary and moving frame which would is 1.06066 at 1/3 and Y=1.00000000000000000000001 for a very slow separation. So I'm pretty sure they didn't figure this out and neither did I so I should update my physics stack exchange post.
Michael345 you asked an important question and don't seem at all interested in the answer. Did you get your answer? Your question and answer was a real eye opener for me. It taught me a lot.
Michael345 you asked an important question and don't seem at all interested in the answer. Did you get your answer? Your question and answer was a real eye opener for me. It taught me a lot.
Sorry being COVID-19 stranded in Bali my free time is highly variable.

Also as you new I should not expect you to know my quirks

While I appreciate your subject is extremely complex I like Readers Digest version answers

Post 144 to long and then you added 145. Then 146 is this question. Bearing the above 144 not understand sorry, have not obtained answer elsewhere

Will continue looking around and appreciate if you can dumb down any further information to 146 if possible

I don't really understand what use your straight green "Loedel lines" are, since only the endpoints of those lines have "equal proper time", as I'm sure you'll agree. Intermediate points have no special significance, as far as I can see. Is that correct, or do intermediate points on those straight green lines mean something in particular to you?

The Loedel lines of perspective simultaneity are just like any other lines of simultaneity from a perspective except that this half speed perspective is also a perspective of the same proper times on 2 velocity lines. The intermediate points have the same significance as those on any line of perspective simultaneity. I say over and over that relativity forbids a proper-time perspective because proper time is independent of perspective by definition. When Alice and Bob reunite in the twin paradox, there is no contradiction to what their clocks read from any perspective. I always qualify the word simultaneity with perspective which relativity has no need to do because there is no such term as proper simultaneity in relativity. I get around this rule by using a perspective that just happens to coincide with proper time which also gets around the hysteresis of other perspectives. Here is a diagram that illustrates the hysteresis of perspective.
It's the top half of the twin paradox where Alice returns at 3/5c and the other eye is where she just keeps going. The eyes show the hysteresis of perspective around two green lines of Loedel perspective for perspective velocities between +c and -c. The green lines shut the eyes which means from that perspective there is no confusion about the proper times. You need to dump all that relativity out of your head and stop trying to understand all this with that prejudice and start interpreting it using only algebra because that's all this is.

Now I know algebra is damn hard, it was my worst subject in high school. There are equations on one side and they somehow generate lines with slopes and intersections on a graph. I've been on forums since 2006 and have never met even the highest PhD who understands algebra (or relative velocity or Doppler). People look at my diagrams and all they see is multicolored lines on a square grid without any understanding of what they mean.

That reminds me, my very first question in 2006 was how was relativity for light different from the Doppler effect for sound. It took more than 10 yrs to get a correct answer from an endless stream of useless answers that had nothing to do with the question. As a result, my participation in forums was almost zero until 2014 when Brian Greene came out with his on-line course.
Last edited:
if you can dumb down any further information to 146 if possible
Ok you understood the guy in the video that basically there's no way to verify c is the same in both directions. I say by knowing relativity, you can shine a light between two separating atomic clocks (not subject to Einstein's faulty clock sync method) that gets over the question of whether light is the same speed in opposite directions. If it wasn't, the two separating clocks would not receive the light at exactly the same time. And using relativity, you can set the time of the center clock to shine the light bulb to calculate how far and how long the light travels in each direction then multiply by 2.

The Earth frame is the same as Bob's frame, isn't it?
In this example it just happens to be. If my Loedel diagram was about Bob and Alice leaving Earth in opposite directions, Bob and Earth would be separate and the Minkowski translation would have Bob as the reference frame with the Earth speeding away from him at 1/3c.

If in the Md Bob was on earth and Alice was leaving them at 3/5c, the equivalent reverse-Md where Alice is "stationary" would have Alice stationary relative to a blank featureless area of space where the earth once was at the start. Then she takes off from that featureless area after 4 yrs to catch up with Bob. Do you know how difficult it would be to physically position Alice without any drift from a featureless area? Next to physically impossible yet relativity brings in these un-physical perspectives and demands you always keep them in mind. I don't make those demands because they are ridiculous. The cartesian coordinates are the blank featureless background that Bob and Alice and the Earth play in.

Can you please show me how you calculate 3/5c from -1/3c and +1/3c?
No. That is just basic use of the relativistic velocity combo equation. Get a calculator and punch in those numbers.

What is the frame of the "Loedel diagram". Can you show me a "Loedel diagram"? What is a "Loedel diagram"?
It is the diagram I labelled as the Loedel diagram.

We also both seem to agree that there are no preferred frames - no frame is "absolutely" at rest.
That's why you can choose any frame as absolutely at rest because they're all equal choices.

No. It's not stuck on that
It is absolutely stuck on that because it doesn't want anyone to say the CMB is the preferred reference frame but it is, just like the earth is, just like Bob's spaceship is just like a proton in the LHC is. Relativity's paranoia is mind-boggling and it will make idiotic claims to refute the existence of absolute time or space. If any choice is valid then a preferred frame is one of the valid choices. It makes no difference to the math. You can't depict relative velocity without a reference frame. In the muon experiment there is absolutely no need to calculate the results by considering the perspective that the muon is stationary and the Earth is moving towards it at .994c. This is not physics, it's lunacy although technically correct in every way but who cares?

All I'm saying is there's nothing in the universe we can point to and say "that's absolutely at rest". You agree with that, don't you?
Of course I do and I can point to anything as absolutely relatively at rest.

It seems to me that in your Alice and Bob example, we only need Alice and Bob. Why do we need two more "participants"?
Put more effort into your thinking because you're advocating relativity being stuck on every example is just Bob and Alice floating in a featureless space that isn't even allowed being a background frame.

But your red "Alice" line in that diagram is in motion in the 'x' coordinates of your diagram, so this diagram doesn't show Alice as "stationary".
Ok you unknowingly advocate depicting relative velocity as requiring two Md's but I guess you've never seen what that involves. Alice changes velocity in the regular Md so she must also be the one who initiates the change in velocity in the reverse Md. She can't remain stationary while Bob initiates the change in velocity because that will mean Bob ages 2 yrs less than Alice which is a completely different scenario. So really? You've done spacetime diagrams before?

Yes, because most diagrams like this are drawn with the x coordinate increasing to the right, whereas yours increases to the left. Yours is a kind of mirror-image diagram, compared to what we usually see.
Yeah but math is great ain't it. You're free to do whatever is allowed without being thrown for a loop.

All of space is "blank" in this scenario, except for Alice and Bob (or Earth, if you prefer). It's not clear what your "background coordinates" are attached to. Who or what is stationary in your "background" coordinates? Is there anything?
More thinking please. Who or what is your graph paper attached to? It's blank until you start drawing on it and those lines are relative to the lines on your graph paper.

pace isn't a substance. You can't measure the speed of "space".
No you can't but space contains stuff. The space between them doesn't move but they move, not relative to the space, but to each other. In my reverse Md scenario, Alice would have to orient her stationary position in blank space relative to a receding Earth which would have to maintain an absolutely constant relative velocity away from her. No perturbations from other space objects allowed. A completely impossible scenario so why even consider it.

Light, on the other hand, can be thought of as little particles: photons. Those are things that can move from one place to another.
Photons do not move. Photons are the position part of wave/particle duality. The waves are the motion part. A wave collapses into a photon which can't move because if it does, it is no longer a photon, it's a wave. No one seems to understand this.

Relative to the blank space? The blank space is not a thing. You just said that, didn't you?
Space has things in it but the vacuum doesn't move. There can be no relative velocity to a vacuum or to the light that propagates through it.

Clocks in different frames tick at different rates
Not relative to themselves. They always tick at the same rate within their own frames.

I don't know what you mean by that
If Bob is the stationary frame his clock becomes the clock of the stationary frame replacing the Earth clock. In my reverse Md I showed that I chose to maintain the Earth clock even when Alice had control of the stationary frame. I went to some length to explain how that works (it's not in relativity).

Could you please supply the equations or transformations you use to convert to a "Loedel" diagram or frame, or whatever it is?
Relativity does that. I don't have transforms between coordinate systems because there is only 1 coordinate system and a bunch of lines that relativity chooses to make entire frames out of and rotate. I don't do that. There are no Lorentz transform equations in my math.

As far as I can tell, Epstein diagrams are fully consistent with the "assumptions of relativity".
Well you didn't see my Epstein diagrams. Yes they are fully consistent except the light lines have any possible slope so they are not the same from every perspective.

In what way was it "doctored"?
He took a normal frame rotation (two pieces of graph paper attached at the origin and rotated past each other) and made it look like he rotated the x'-axis in the opposite direction to the ct'-axis so that c would be constant from every perspective according to Einstein's decree. What he really did was fold the graph paper along the x-axis so that the x'-axis would appear above the x-axis. Perfectly legal mathematically but the Epstein diagram can't do that because the x-axis is also c. The x'-axis would then be the same as the ct'-axis. This is actually a more accurate rendering of what's really happening in that whatever happens to the units of the ct'-axis also happen to the x'-axis which Minkowski fraudulently uses as proof that length contraction separately exists rather than being a phantom mathematical construct of his diagram.

At this rate of progress I don't see completion of this thread for another two years.
What do you mean by "co-located frames"? Frames that have no velocity relative to one another? And what "value" are you referring to, that might not be the same?

At the same point in space but their relative velocity is irrelevant. They can stay with or pass each other. The proper time values are not the same when Bob and alice co-locate when they re-unite as in the twin paradox.
Relativity has no problem dealing with proper times; it doesn't "forbid" any consideration of them.
It does not have a universal present based on proper time because it focusses on perspective time and hence proper times separated by distance are subject to perspective. I'm proposing perspective time is illusion and subject to proper time.

Yes she can, in principle. Her destination would physically appear closer to her, if she was moving fast enough to notice (3/5c would do the trick).
That's philosophy, it has not been proven. Even a parallax measurement of length to a star is independent of time but as soon as you do the measurement from from two moving spaceships you invoke the relativity of simultaneity but that is still a time measurement of distance is not the actual distance shrinking. Look a Greene's video of what length contraction would look like and then look at his contradictory video explaining length contraction is not physical, just measurement due to the relativity of simultaneity of clocks. I doubt eyes are able to see that.

If she put a whole bunch of her metre rulers end to end, the number of metres she'd measure between Earth and the destination planet or "finish line" would be less than what Bob would measure with his rulers, in your example.
No such thing as rulers or odometers independent of clocks being able to measure length contraction.

You're not saying the Lorentz transformations are incorrect, though. Or are you?
They are based on relativistic math and assumptions and adequately agree with the experimental results limit the results to what the math can apply. I don't have perspective relativity of simultaneity or length contraction or time slowing in my math so Lorentz transforms are irrelevant to me.

To me, it looks like you're mostly using the equations of special relativity
No. I'm using the two main equations and I'm altering the first so that I can depict relative velocity in one spacetime diagram instead of 2.
Well, no. If I stand on a football field and kick a football, obviously the velocity of the football in the Earth frame is non-zero while it is in the air. How, if I run along the football field and watch the football in flight, then in my running frame (which is not the same as the Earth frame), the football has a different velocity to what it has in the Earth frame, but in both frames its velocity is non-zero. This is exactly the kind of situation the velocity-addition formula is made for:
Here, uuu might be the velocity of the football in the Earth frame, u′u′u' is its velocity in my running frame, and vvv is the speed of my running frame, relative to the Earth frame.

Totally false. The kicker and stadium are one frame, the football is another, the receiver is the 3rd. All 3 are stationary within their own frames where proper time beats at the same universal rate of v_t =c. What's important to note is the field is the electromagnetic medium and is the featureless background cartesian coordinates of the Minkowski diagram. Neither the kicker or the receiver have any relative velocity to the light ball or field (only the light ball has relative velocity to the field).
I'm glad you clarified that. So you accept that length contraction is required in SR
SR is a philosophy and length contraction is an absolutely necessary philosophical part of that philosophy. That philosophy is based on the subjective illusion of perspective for both time and space. Space is invariant for me and so is time rate which differs between frames due to relativity of proper simultaneity. I can also base the math on the relativity of perspective simultaneity but why add the complexity (I've done it, it's ugly). Relativity is a collection of physical facts the philosophy tries to explain supported by math. I use a different math for the same facts and my math applies to facts SR won't recognize because its math is philosophically restricted from going into those places as I've listed before.
I'd also like to add, even though this discussion will be months from now, that when we get to the MMX and how my math starkly differs from relativistic math, relativistic math contains terms like (c+v) and (c-v), which according the the relativistic combo law should reduce down to c. But they don't. There's a very good reason these terms seem to contradict there can be no relative velocity that can add or subtract from c. Why go to the trouble of explaining why to your followers when you can just decree that the reason is counter-intuitive hence it must be right. What is the reason? No one you'll ever ask seems to know. You have to be able to do the math to find out.
It sounds like you don't believe that length contraction is a real effect, even though you accept time dilation. Is that a correct summary of your views?
No. You tell me what I said.
Do you think that you can make or that you have made a self-consistent theory of relativity that assumes that lengths are invariant in all frames?
If she's using Bob's star charts, then she's using Bob's rulers. Agreed?
Do you agree with me that, if she laid out one of her own metre rulers next to Bob's (as she watches Bob's one fly past), she'd measure two different lengths for the two rules, even though the rulers would be identical if brought to rest with respect to one another?
No, that's what the philosophy of SR believes. I have Y embedded with v not x or t. Einstein made the same mistake in E=mc^2 by embedding Y with m instead of with v in momentum and then he redefined what m means as pertaining to either matter or energy. There is no conversion of energy into matter when you push a car up a hill but the car gains energy which he defined as the car gains mass. Y is a factor that is grouped with variables and in my math it is always grouped with v. As Y approaches infinity in e1quations, the equations always approach a finite value. There are no infinities in physics (except wrongly in SR) as I will show over the next 2 years.
I showed your explicitly how the relevant events transform between the two frames in post #72, using the Lorentz transformations.
Not relevant to my math. She has no odometer that can measure length contraction. She only has proper distance from the charts and proper time from her atomic clock. You guys are so big on relativity's experimental results yet when you provide no tools that can perform the measurements you claim no tools are needed, we just know there must be length contraction because Einstein said so. He actually said there is no such physical thing as it's due to relativity of perspective simultaneity. You can't say it's due to both actual physical contraction and also due to perspective simultaneity. Which is it? That's a contradiction in science.
Maybe it would be useful if you could specify the spacetime coordinates of those same two events in the two frames, according to your calculations/theory. Then we can compare.
Sure, which of the overlaying spacetime diagrams would you like to use?
You avoided my question, there.
More thinking required on your part. I provided the information but the understanding is ultimately up to you. The only time my former mentor would answer a question was after I stumbled around in the dark trying to make sense of what he said, I'd put what he said in my own words. Then he'd show me his next card. Pain is the best teacher.
Notice that I have done nothing but "plain old algebra", just like you.
I'm just using slopes of lines and where they intersect. That's basic algebra. You're dragging in coordinate rotations and suggesting I should learn calculus. I haven't had to use calculus since university (nor algebra until SR came along).
how your "theory" of relativity differs from SR, or even if it differs.
I have provided a preliminary list but the actual list is much longer and it will be revealed as the topics come up.
It's almost like you're not sure, yourself.
I'm not sure what this forum tolerates. So far it seems more tolerant than most. I want to concentrate on the math differences because if they're disputed then the philosophy has no foundation. I try not to discuss the philosophy or history because then it moves from discussing facts to discussing opinions and my opinions are objectionable to everyone.
You seem to get angry when I ask you questions, like it's a waste of your time to try to answer me, or something.
No your questions need to be asked and no one has ever shown enough interest to ask this many questions. But I'm getting a lot of repetitious questions or comments on how this doesn't fit what relativity says as if I'm ignorant of what relativity says. Yes I'm frustrated because I thought the questions would come at the end and the whole theory needs to be presented as a whole jigsaw puzzle rather than just a box of pieces to see the whole picture. Your trying to piece it together yourself into a picture that you think it should be.
We don't have to have this discussion, if you think you have better ways to use your time. Just let me know if you want to stop.
I want to have this discussion but I'm also hoping it won't drag on forever. Do you not think you're asking the same questions over and over?
Remember, that was back at post #71. There have been 50 more posts since then.
Wait then. If you asked the question, I'll get around to it.
Relativity is all about translating their different coordinates from one frame to another.
SR does that, I deal with proper time and proper distance and I don't care what the perspectives of that are. Relativity is not based on the illusion of perspective despite what Einstein decreed. A person 100 yds away from you is not really as tall as your thumb. It would be wild if he walks up to you and he's still as tall as your thumb. Then the physics all changes. There are real persistent relativistic effects, such as age difference from the twin paradox, that don't disappear when the velocity does. There is no such thing as measurable persistent length contraction because it's only due to the relativity of perspective simultaneity which disappears when there's no relative velocity. These are the facts and they are undisputed but always ignored.
You and I seem to agree that two observers who use identical clocks can have those two clocks tick off different amounts of time between a specified pair of spacetime events.
We do not agree on this at all. The clocks do not tick off time differently, the timing started or ended at different times.
I don't understand what you're saying about "the reference frame's perspective through the moving frame's perspective".
Bob at x=2.5 "sees" Alice at x"=2 but Alice sees Bob at x"=1.6. Bob at x=2.5 would look through Alice's perspective of him as being x"=1.6. Length contraction is Alice at x'=2 sees Bob contract to x"=1.6. Length dilation (borrowed from the term time dilation) is Bob's view at x=2.5 of Alice's dilated length of x'=2. Basically "dilation" and "contraction" are from different perspectives.

That's it for all the questions from page 7, now I'll move to page 6.
Don't be silly. It was me who pointed out exactly what the difference is, in the first place. You're responding to my post #98, where I explained exactly what the difference is, and even put a label on the quantity γvγv\gamma v.
This is my in #84 response to your question what is Yv
The question you should have asked is why is v a relative velocity and Yv is not. Bob's not going anywhere but his relative velocity to Alice is x/t = 3/5c. Alice's relative velocity to Bob is also 3/5 from her DSR reading. But she is going somewhere, 3ly as measured by her clock in 4 yrs. This is her Yv=x/t'=3/4c which Bob has no access to seeing. He sees Alice's clock ticking at half of his so he can't see her Yv. She can't see her motion contracting the space she's travelling. I choose a real clock and a real star chart over her non-existent odometer.

And now you're claiming to have explained my own concept to me 10 posts later?
r in the 4-vector formulation of special relativity
Yes that's the only place Yv is seen in relativity and it's the entire basis of my math. Brehme is mostly unknown and Loedel lines are my term so it's completely unknown in relativity.
I do not believe that Epstein supports/supported the "non-constancy of c as a velocity".
The slope of c light message lines is dependent on Y in Epstein diagrams. Also the lengths of the light lines are the same in constant relative velocity regardless of whether they're chasing moving Alice or going back to stationary Bob. This does not happen in Minkowski diagrams.
Above, you claimed you were responding to my post #27, but then you went off onto this tangent about "reverse Minkowski" diagrams and then Epstein, so that you didn't really respond to my post at all.
Your question was what's a participant and I provided examples from the different types of spacetime diagrams.
Minkowski didn't fudge his diagram. What are you talking about?
AA recently.
forget about general relativity completely at first
I have not looked at general relativity but it looks devoid of controversy unlike special.
you need to be very familiar with calculus
Oh you were referring calculus to general relativity. My bad.
"stuck" on something or can't deal with some problem you think you've cracked
Partly answered, more details as the discussion progresses.

Next is questions from page 5.
So what? Yv isn't physically meaningful. What is it the velocity of? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
Similarly, if Alice wants to use parallax, she needs to observe from two different locations in her frame.
Alice needs 2 ships or she can travel in a corkscrew affecting he relative velocity to the distance she's trying to measure using parallax.
You're essentially claiming that nobody anywhere can make a map.
Earth does move but if you're setting up a reference frame, Earth is far more applicable to a bunch of ships or satellites that choosing a single travelling satellite to be the reference frame for time and distance.
All of them make physical sense.
AA No.
There are no preferred reference frames in relativity. Alice's frame, in which the Earth moves away from her and Proxima Centauri approaches her, is just as valid a Bob's frame, in which Alice moves between a "stationary" Earth and Proxima Centauri.
Technically yes, practically no. Just look at the reverse- Md compared to the standard Md.
they are unlikely to relate to anything that's meaningful physically.
Stick with me and I'll show you the opposite is true.
When you ignore it, you get wrong answers, like those speeds of light that you obtain that are greater than or less than c.
false. Again I ask have you never heard of crossing the universe in a very short time on a ship? Please answer.
Your theory fails to accurately describe reality. SR succeeds where you fail.
The opposite is true.
So, what is your alternative theory derived from?
you said you "ignore" length contraction, but here you admit that "of course their lengths measurements are different".
It's not part of my theory to explain the constancy of c nor is it a physical phenomenon of space or matter actually shrinking. I don't care about perspective views of time or space so I ignore them and still get the correct answers,.
It's not assumed; it's derived from the postulates.
It's derived from the relativity of simultaneity which is a time measurement of distance. Is there a pure distance derived postulate? Even if you derive it from a horizontal light clock example, it's still due to measuring distance with a clock. Any example you do, the muon example or the equivalence of electricity and magnetism, all of them can be solved without depending on length contraction. I will show this as part of this thread.
So far, I have pointed out a number of errors in your calculations, but you have not responded.

Which "extra physical phenomena" can you predict, that relativity cannot? Please give one example, at least.
When I see that I will respond as I go backward through this thread.
Please give one example of something that relativity calls "indeterminate" but your math is able to determine. Be sure to choose something that is physically testable, at least in principle.
AA. Two examples. Relativity does not allow you to postulate how age difference progresses from Alice's velocity change to the final value of how much she ages less than Bob. Due to SR's definition of proper time, that determination can only be made upon co-location of Bob and Alice. As such, relativity cannot calculate permanent age difference for any velocity changes where Alice stops or leaves Bob faster than a stop or leaves Bob faster than her original velocity away from Bob.
It is impossible to measure a velocity using a clock by itself.

You are yet to define "proper time" or "proper distance", as you understand them, and I won't be commenting on those until you do.
A star chart provides proper distance and an on-board clock provides proper time.
Neither of them measure anything as travelling at 3/4c.
Wrong. Alice uses her star charts drawn from Bob's frame and her clock to measure Yv. She has no possible instrument to measure if her path has length contracted due to her motion. This is Einstein's philosophy without any experimental verification except if Einstein said it, it must be the only possible explanation. I have a much better one which, if I ever get done with these questions, maybe you'll understand.
Yv is just a randomly calculated quantity. It is not physically meaningful.
It is not randomly calculated and is totally physically meaningful. Again, answer my question. Have you never heard of a ship crossing the universe in very little of its time? Once you answer this, all your objections will crumble into dust.

I'm tired, this is gruelling and it's taking up most of my days and I don't even feel close to the finish line.
Sure she can. She can pull out a ruler and measure something that she sees flying past her, for instance.
No such ruler exists.
That requires acceleration.
Did you google clock handoff in relativity yet?
You seem to be hung up on "permanent" age differences, for some reason. I agree that whenever Alice moves and then stops moving relative to Bob, there will be permanent time differences, due to Alice's accelerations. It doesn't matter whether Alice physically returns to Bob's location. She doesn't have to. She could, for example, just stop some distance away from Bob.
Absolutely wrong and completely false in every way.
You're wrong. That would be a situation in which relativity could draw conclusions about their "permanent age difference". Also, once they were at rest relative to one another, every other frame would agree about their "permanent age difference" in the "stationary" frame.
Do you have someone you could ask for the correct answer. If they are distance separated they are liable to perspectives that see different times on their clocks than they do even if they're in the same frame.
If "everyone" except for you reaches one conclusion and you reach a different one, that should be food for thought, at the very least. What are the chances that you're the real expert?
In this case extremely good as you have no idea of what is the correct answer.
It may be simpler, but that's no good if it's wrong.
This discussion is devolving into an ignorance of facts instead of a difference of opinions. Unfortunately these facts don't appear in popular relativity and are only known by experts who keep a lot of secrets to themselves.
you don't start mixing different frames (e.g. using distances from one frame and times from a different one). That way only leads to error.
Remind me, though, because I'm not understanding yet: what is the "Loedel perspective"? Is that your "average velocity" (or "half velocity") frame, or something else?
It is impossible to take it out of relativity while leaving everything else intact.
That's why SR falls apart as a philosophy even though the math agrees with experimental results.
And if you don't have all three of them, then you won't be able to account for experimental results
I will show you that's obviously not true as my math does not disagree with experimental results. You keep saying I've made errors but where have you seen my math come up with numbers differently from relativity. It certainly comes up with a different philosophy which you assume must be therefore wrong.
For now, it is sufficient that I have shown that your math does not even produce self-consistent results.
Where have you done this?

Ok now on to page 4.