Dear Eckard - I have now responded to your interested paper on your page. I quote my rather hasty comments to your numbered endnotes and suggestions as follows:

1) ...there is no common time but different local times. Suggestion 1: Negative values of d or t, respectively...

VT-By requiring that all observers see things in the same way Einstein made simultaneous time impossible. If you dispense with this requirement and assume absolute time...in fact NO time, a universal state can be dealt with all over the Universe.

2) Infinitely long rigid bodies (coordinate systems) ...Suggestion 2: As already Leibniz understood for numbers, one may arbitrarily choose only one measure

VT--Well not only infinitely long, but if you take a given reference frame and make it expand to fill the entire Universe you have absolute space! In my Beautiful Universe Theory also found here I have found that there is no necessity to start with Special Relativity - why distort apace and time unnecessarily if Lorentz transformations in an absolute Universe suffice?

3) Michelson's experiment ...Lorentz, merely managed to rescue the ether hypothesis in a rather mysterious manner. Length contraction has never been directly observed. Suggestion 3: The velocity of light c equals to the distance d between the position of emitter at the moment of emission and the position of receiver at the moment of detection divided by the time of flight t: c=d/t.

VT-- I have yet to prove it, but in relation to the above theory I thought a lot and concluded that relativity 'works' in a discrete ether lattice where light speed c is a maximum but can be less if the local density increases (for example due to gravity).

4) Poincaré's method of synchronization uses a signal that is emitted from A and then reflected from B back to A. While this method is correct on condition the distance between A and B does not change, it otherwise destroys symmetry and synchrony between A and B.

Suggestion 4: Synchronization can be performed by means of clock transport. If the ABA method is preferred then the change of the distance during measurement must be known for calculating a compensation of its influence.

VT--In both cases it is clock time that changes, not time itself as a dimension. And if a meter is flown its length changes not space itself as a dimension. Spacetime in SR is an unnecessary formulation that 'works' for the wrong reason (that c is constant).

Vladimir

Dear Yuri - more importantly I also read it!!

Good luck

Vladimir

Dear Jonathan - thanks. I rated your wonderful essay on July 6 and rated it immediately. Good luck to you. May we meet on fqxi 2014 !

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir

18x0.017=0.306

3/10 approx 1/3

just confirmation of old observation

http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0008

http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0030

My pleasure Vladimir,

Very original thinking.

Best wishes,

Antony

Dear Vladimir,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

Vlad,

Wow! Well done. I was watching the shuffling nervously for you. I hope your heart could stand the stress! Congratulations.

I think it's really now all on a level playing field again. (My third top 10 in a row but nothing to show for it yet). But what a rich bunch of essays. You beat a heap of other high quality work.

Best of luck with the judges.

Peter

Congratulations Vladimir!

I second Peter's commendation. According to Brendan's contest blog - you are in the finals! I wish you luck, and sympathetic treatment from the expert judges.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Peter and Jonathan

Thanks for alerting me to my essay making it to the finalists yaaaay! - I was not aware of it - considering the last-minute ups and downs in the ratings. And congratulations for you too achieving your peer's highest estimation (including mine of course). I was wondering how many of these 4.3 and/or other essays are by fqXi members - those that will be automatically shunted in as explained by Brendan at the outset? With the best of luck and regards!

Vladimir

    Hi Vladimir,

    Let me join Peter and Jonathan to congratulate you for making the list. I was anxious just like you that no member would displace the both of us. I would not have been happy that your essay did not make list when I see some not so good being in the final list.

    Regards,

    Akinbo

    Hi Dr. Ojocv vvvvvvvv

    Oops sorry my grandson has added his contribution. Appreciation and congratulations for your excellent essay making it past the penultimate hurdle.

    With best regards

    Vladimir