Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,
Let me guess: You are hoping for more attention to your 57 pages paper „Everything's relative, or is it?". Did you therefore refuse discussing just selected details at FQXi ? Can you please guide me to forums that are better suited?
Being a German, I understand "or is it" in the cautiously doubting naïve sense of "oder etwa nicht". Having read decisive parts of your paper at least twice, I am sure that you definitely meant: Lorentz' local time was a step into the wrong direction. Time as to be used in technology doesn't relate on velocity.
One has to either follow the mainstream and believe in Einstein's Relativity (I am capitalizing beliefs) including paradoxical length contraction, time dilution, and Relativistic addition of velocities or share Michelson's agnostic opinion and considering Relativity a useless monster.
Your fictitious AE defends his Relativity of time with two apparently strong arguments:
- Lorentz' gamma has been proven useful in HEP.
- While length contraction and time dilution were never directly measured, in particular myon decay can be interpreted in terms of time dilution.
I consider your counter arguments compelling:
- Gamma belongs to energy (and frequency) i.e. time squared, not to time.
- Apparent time dilution can be attributed to Doppler's even stronger apparent effect.
Strictly distinguish between past and future I see time and energy a conjugated cosine transformation pair. Therefore I don't hide my skepticism concerning "space-time symmetry" and Emilia Noether.
Being not familiar with Heaviside's analogies, I cannot imagine how gravity may act like a medium. I rather am ready to ascribe physical quantities like e.g. impedance to the fields in space.
I prefer attributing Sagnac's effect to the existence of a reference point in case of rotation in contrast to the reference-less linear shift.
With high respect to you as perhaps the first one who comes close to the truth,
Sincerely Yours,
Eckard Blumschein