Steven
At the generic level, I am not sure there is any further to 'go'. Obviously there is more than just what I write in these posts, but not a lot. And by definition, there cannot be a lot, because generically, it is not that complex. How this manifests, certainly is. I appreciate what you are saying in terms of 'proscribing experiments', but I do not think that is what follows on. The consequence of what I am saying is a set of rules/guiding principles which stem from understanding how we are aware of existence, hence what it is for us, and so how that must occur. Which I would suggest is a good start point! Establishing what happens can proceed in any appropriate manner, it just being that concepts/hypotheses/etc should not contravene the rules (ie the very nature of physical existence).
Having said that! Here is the first 22 paragraphs (3 pages) of my abridged version of why Einstein was wrong. That is, this does not contain philosophy/etc, just a simple conversion of some of those basic rules into actuality and a simple argument. Apart from the fact that posting 22 paras is enough, as you can see from para 22, there is a 'natural break' in the argument. And indeed, if an argument starts off incorrectly, then it finishes incorrectly, which in this case means e does not equal mc2.
Why Einstein was wrong (Abridged Version)
Introduction
1 Distance is an artefact of physically existent entities, it being a difference between them in terms of spatial position. And differences do not exist, entities do, and they do so in one specific physically existent state at a time. So distance can only occur between physically existent states which exist at the same time. It is not possible for there to be a distance, as opposed to some form of conceptual spatial relationship, between something which exists and something else which does not.
2 Therefore, any given distance is always unique, since it reflects a definitive physically existent circumstance at a given time. The notion which presumes there could be varied results when quantifying it, either in terms of space or duration, is a fallacy. Whatever the measuring methodology, there can only be one result for any given distance.
3 However, distance can be expressed, conceptually, in terms of duration incurred. The concept being that instead of assessing distance as the definitive spatial quantity which it is, it can alternatively be measured as the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But as this cannot happen, it must be understood that there is no duration, as such. It is just an alternative expression to, and the equivalent of, a specific spatial measure. Failure to understand this results in the flawed application of the equation x = vt.
4 When establishing what constitutes distance, space or dimension, the reference is a conceptual matrix of spatial positions, with which any given physical reality is 'divided' spatially. To 'locate' this matrix, it must be associated with any given constituent physically existent state of that physical reality. Consistency of reference must be maintained in order to ensure comparability of subsequent measurements.
5 The dimension/size/shape (ie spatial footprint) of any constituent physically existent state is defined in terms of spatial positions 'occupied' on this matrix. 'Mapping' other existent states would reveal their comparability with each other. Distance is usually measured between the two nearest dimensions of the existent states, but could involve any combination of dimensions. And depending on the spatial relationship of the states, it could revolve around separation, or one within another.
6 Dimension is a specific aspect of spatial footprint, relating to the distance along any possible axis of that 'occupation'. So, three is the minimum number of spatial dimensions that is ontologically correct at the highest level of conceptualisation (ie up/down, back/forth, side/side). But that is not what is physically existent. At the existential level, the number of possible dimensions is half the number of possible directions that the substance with the smallest spatial footprint could travel from any single spatial point on the spatial matrix.
The misconception of time and timing (the AB example)
7 Einstein: On the electrodynamics of moving bodies (1905), Section 1 Part 1, Definition of Simultaneity, is the reference.
8 A and B were each attributed a time (local) of existence, ie t(a) and t(b). Either there was a relationship between these timings, or not. If there was a relationship, then there was no timing issue to resolve. If there was no relationship, then nothing further could have been discerned from this information since they were therefore variables defined on the basis of different references with no known relationship.
9 So there must have been a presumption that the timing devices were synchronised (ie working properly), even though this was not recognised. That is because the reference for timing was not understood, it being a conceptual constant rate of change, ie not the timing devices, which just 'tell' the time, and are only valid if related to this reference (ie synchronised), within the realms of practicality. This must be so, otherwise the timing system is useless.
10 Hence the timing relationship which supposedly needed to be inferred, ie "local time" to a "common time", was known already, and was a false distinction implying a extra layer of timing for which there was no physical justification. Presumption of the distance AB meant that A and B must have been existent at the same time, ie t(a) equalled t(b). Had the times been different, then A could not have been compared to B, and distance established, because they were not existent at the same time.
11 The comparison of AB to BA was effected in terms of time incurred with consecutive, not concurrent, timings. This was incorrect. Not only is there no duration in a spatial circumstance, but AB cannot be compared to BA on the basis of subsequent timings. Because such timings cannot be presumed to relate to AB, as either A and/or B could have altered over time, and therefore the distance could have altered. The measurement can only represent whatever was deemed to constitute A and B, and therefore AB, at a specific time.
12 The quantification of distance in terms of a conceptual duration incurred, was not an issue, had it been understood. Neither was the use of light to do this, with the condition that its speed be deemed constant, inherently a problem. Any method, involving any direction, would suffice, if properly calculated and represented. The errors were assuming physical existence, and hence any artefact thereof (eg distance), continues to exist in the same physically existent state over time, and a misunderstanding of the reference used in timing.
Light
13 Before progressing with the argument, it is necessary to highlight certain fundamental characteristics of observational light. It is a physical effect in photons which enables sight. As that effect results from an atomic interaction, the speed of the physical phenomenon which the photons interact with is irrelvant, unlike in a collision. Thus the start speed of any given light is always the same, and as with any existent entity, it will continue to move at that speed unless impeded. Also, there is a relentless sequence of such interactions, and light travels in all directions.
14 So when reference is made to light, it is usually in respect of many different physically existent phenomena, ie different physically existent lights may only be the same in terms of that aspect of its physical state which when received can be subsequently processed. Hence, the physically existent entity in its own right, and what physically can be processed, need to be differentiated. The point being that the latter remains the same (or nearly so) over time, and is the same whether received (ie in the line of travel of) by an animate or inanimate entity. And since it is this photon based representation of any given physically existent state which is received, there is always a delay between the time of existence and the creation of that representation, and the time of receipt of that.
The misconception of the role of observation
15 It is argued that the AB example is explainable in terms of observation. So time of existence, and time of observation (ie receipt of light), were asserted by Einstein to be the same if whatever was involved was in the "immediate proximity". This is correct as an approximation, though would need definition. But in reality there is always a difference, which is fundamental to highlighting the flaw in his argument.
16 Introducing the differential between time of existence, and time of observation of existence, is irrelevant. As before, the timing devices must be synchronised, otherwise these timings are meaningless, and if the distance AB is presumed, then A and B must have existed at the same time. Alternatively, if A and B did not exist at the same time, then there could not be a distance AB to observe.
17 Therefore, in the context of observation, assuming a simplification of the real conditions, any difference in these times could only be a function of the time delay for light to travel from B to A, or vice versa, and not a reflection of some other variance. That is, again there is no issue to be resolved. The difference in timing would have been because they were observations of reality (ie receipts of light). However, there was no observational light in Einstein's writings and theory anyway.
18 Physically, there is always a distance and therefore a delay whilst light travels; and there must always be light in order to observe. Indeed, what was the spatial relationship between the observer and the light as at the time of existence and creation of the light, could alter whilst the light is travelling. Neither is physical existence affected by observation, because it occurred before that, and was not involved in that interaction. That being with the physically existent representation of that reality (eg light), which then just ceases to exist in that physical form, in the same way as it would if the interaction had been with an inanimate entity.
19 By substituting c for v, ie a specific velocity for a generic one, c was asserted to be: 2AB/(t'(a) - t(a)). Which was wrong because that time involved duration incurred from subsequent timings, apart from being deemed an elapsed time in both cases anyway, which it is not. Assuming the quantity is doubled, it should be either twice A to B or B to A, or the sum of A to B and B to A incurred at the same time. So it should be: c = 2AB/2(t(a) - t(b)). Or simply, as considering either direction is superfluous, c = AB/(t(a) - t(b)). Which, although correct, is a statement of the obvious. That is, the velocity is a ratio of total distance travelled to the time taken to do so, ie the definition of velocity.
20 A key point is that the light Einstein referred to was not observational light anyway. He was using it as an example of a conceptual constant reference against which to measure time and distance. There was just a dissassociated "ray of light", an entity referred to as an "observer", and the concept of "frames of reference", which can leave the reader with the impression that observation has been accounted for. Whereas, in fact, he only invoked a constant, the determining factor being how he deployed that in the narrative/equations, not what he called it. A timing/spatial reference is by definition, a constant, while in practice observational light approximates to a constant, which further disguises the mistake.
21 Einstein failed to differentiate physical existence from the physical representation of it (eg light). He equated the reality of light with physical reality, so there was no observation (ie receipt of light), and the time delay which does occur between time of existence and time of receipt of light, was consequently eliminated. This was counterbalanced by his failure to understand the reference for timing, which followed the flawed concept of simultaneity by Poincaré. In sum, Einstein shifted the time differential which does occur, from the finish of the physical process to the start, deeming it be to a characteristic of physical existence.
22 The book: 'why does E=mc2' by Cox & Forshaw will now also be used as a reference, as this is a standard and readable exposition of Einstein's argument. That is, it is acknowledged that this is a repetition of certain accepted assertions which underpin the argument about relativity, and not a specific opinion of the authors.
Paul