Peter,
" ... but shedding all the apparent issues which Pentcho so enjoys reminding us of."
Pentcho's nonsense is complete bollocks and a tragic waste of bandwidth. Just to pick a random recent example: "Einsteinians universally teach that a light source moving towards the observer sends a shorter wavelength than a stationary light source." Einsteinians, as opposed to Valevians, actually teach that light speed is independent of the motion of the observer, and that there is no stationary light source because all motion is relative.
Let me try another approach with you, Peter: You say that your results are compatible with Joy Christian's. Joy, of course, is not an anti-relativist, and he states the core of his framework quite straightforwardly: "Every quantum mechanical correlation can be understood as a classical, local-realistic correlation among a set of points of a parallelized 7-sphere ..."
The words are precise and carefully chosen, and they form the "engine" of his research program. Even if one doesn't understand what a parallelized 7-sphere is, even if one disputes what is meant by "local-realistic," and even if one doesn't recognize a "set of points" in any context except 3-dimensional Euclidean space -- if one knows any physics at all, one certainly understands what "classical" "quantum" and "correlation" mean.
That's *all* I'm asking of you: just a simple statement or a theorem around which your program is built.
And please be aware of problems you put forward that are already solved, such as " ... an assumption for the Relativity of Simultaneity that 'no absolute frame' also HAD to mean; 'no background frame at all!!'"
Correct. That's why general relativity can be formulated with coordinate-free geometry and why you don't need all those capital letters and exclamation points.
"Einstein found this himself in 1952 with his 'space 's' moving within larger space 'S'.' (Remember the postulates always specified 'propagation' speed!).
Also correct without the exclamation. The speed at which light is propagated is always the speed of light, regardless of physical conditions. We wouldn't know this, however, given that all motion is relative, without the formal map s --> S.
If you don't accept all the conclusions of special relativity, you don't accept the theory at all. You do or you don't, and that's all there is to it. If the anomalies you address violate relativity, then relativity is falsified -- more likely, though, the anomalies are poorly understood, which is why they are anomalies in the first place.
Best,
Tom
