CptBork:
I'm not sure whether you have read the whole thread. I have covered all the issues you're attempting to discuss with MacM already. He is repetitive and never learns anything, so you're wasting your time. To waste a little less of it, you might like to review some of my interactions with MacM in this thread.
To summarise MacM's nutty ideas briefly:
1. MacM makes a meaningless distinction between what he called "reality" and "illusion of motion". Where you and I say "A's clock ticks off x amount of time in frame B", MacM complains that observing A's clock from frame B gives measurements that are only an "illusion of motion", unless frame B happens to be a special kind of frame that only MacM can identify.
2. MacM thinks that the "zero" of time (kindof a "rest time" standard) occurs in a special frame that is the "common local rest frame" of two objects. If the objects are never stationary relative to one another, no such frame can be found and nothing can be said about relative time dilation.
3. Due to (2), MacM believes that two objects must always at some time in their history be stationary relative to one another. After that time, in order to work out time dilation "reality", you need to keep track of all the details of the accelerations of the two objects, since the total history is supposed to determine the "reality" of time dilation.
4. On the other hand, MacM wants to have a bet each way by saying that special relativity accurately predicts the time intervals that observers "see", bearing in mind of course that this "seeing" is always an "illusion of motion" and quite different from "reality".
5. MacM does not believe in length contraction.
6. MacM believes instead in "velocity dilation", where if A is moving at velocity v relative to B, B is not moving at velocity -v relative to A, but at some other velocity determined by some kind of Lorentz-like factor. MacM is forced to this position due to (5).
7. MacM does not believe in the relativity of simultaneity (or even understand it).
8. MacM does not understand what a reference frame is.
9. MacM does not believe that if A sees B's clock as running slow, B also sees A's clock as running slow in special relativity. (Alternatively, he will assert that the use of the word "sees" here means that this is correct but it is only an "illusion of motion" and not "reality".) He calls this symmetry "reciprocity" and asserts that no experiment has ever shown that it occurs. He believes that in "reality" time dilation only works "one way", from his special "common local rest frame", and that length contraction doesn't exist.
10. MacM initially believed that there was a preferred standard of rest. Over time he has backed away from the preferred frame view to his current view that preferred frames still exist but are not absolute (see "common local rest frame" - a "preferred" but nevertheless "local" frame - a contradiction in terms). At this point in time, a preferred frame is just one that MacM designates as such. There is no procedure for finding his preferred frames from which to judge "reality" as opposed to "illusions of motion".
11. MacM cannot give a formula for how the speed of light supposedly varies between frames.
12. In fact, MacM's magnificent theory has no mathematics at all, except the maths "borrowed" from special relativity - i.e. the bits he approves of. Interestingly, he is happy to talk of Lorentz factors and so on, even though the only established basis for such a thing is relativity. His own crazy ideas don't derive the Lorentz factor at all, and yet he uses it.
13. MacM doesn't understand how consequences such as length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity are logically derived from the postulates of SR. Therefore, he asserts that features of SR such as these can be wrong, even if the postulates of SR are correct.
14. MacM will assert that all of the points here are "negative innuendo" that do not represent his actual views.
15. MacM will assert that all "believers" in special relativity lack his capacity to analyse the theory. Instead, we are all indoctrinated and just believe everything we read in our physics textbooks. MacM, of course, is a unique visionary who has seen what nobody has seen in 100 years - the obvious (to MacM) many and varied flaws in Einstein's theories.
16. MacM likes to divert the discussion to general relativity even though he wouldn't know a tensor from a penguin.
17. MacM claims to know all about the Global Positioning System, even though its operation requires an understanding of GR. He claims the GPS system uses "preferred frames", and that this proves all his wacky ideas to be correct.
And that's just for starters.
Anyway, if you want to engage with him, good luck.
I'm not sure whether you have read the whole thread. I have covered all the issues you're attempting to discuss with MacM already. He is repetitive and never learns anything, so you're wasting your time. To waste a little less of it, you might like to review some of my interactions with MacM in this thread.
To summarise MacM's nutty ideas briefly:
1. MacM makes a meaningless distinction between what he called "reality" and "illusion of motion". Where you and I say "A's clock ticks off x amount of time in frame B", MacM complains that observing A's clock from frame B gives measurements that are only an "illusion of motion", unless frame B happens to be a special kind of frame that only MacM can identify.
2. MacM thinks that the "zero" of time (kindof a "rest time" standard) occurs in a special frame that is the "common local rest frame" of two objects. If the objects are never stationary relative to one another, no such frame can be found and nothing can be said about relative time dilation.
3. Due to (2), MacM believes that two objects must always at some time in their history be stationary relative to one another. After that time, in order to work out time dilation "reality", you need to keep track of all the details of the accelerations of the two objects, since the total history is supposed to determine the "reality" of time dilation.
4. On the other hand, MacM wants to have a bet each way by saying that special relativity accurately predicts the time intervals that observers "see", bearing in mind of course that this "seeing" is always an "illusion of motion" and quite different from "reality".
5. MacM does not believe in length contraction.
6. MacM believes instead in "velocity dilation", where if A is moving at velocity v relative to B, B is not moving at velocity -v relative to A, but at some other velocity determined by some kind of Lorentz-like factor. MacM is forced to this position due to (5).
7. MacM does not believe in the relativity of simultaneity (or even understand it).
8. MacM does not understand what a reference frame is.
9. MacM does not believe that if A sees B's clock as running slow, B also sees A's clock as running slow in special relativity. (Alternatively, he will assert that the use of the word "sees" here means that this is correct but it is only an "illusion of motion" and not "reality".) He calls this symmetry "reciprocity" and asserts that no experiment has ever shown that it occurs. He believes that in "reality" time dilation only works "one way", from his special "common local rest frame", and that length contraction doesn't exist.
10. MacM initially believed that there was a preferred standard of rest. Over time he has backed away from the preferred frame view to his current view that preferred frames still exist but are not absolute (see "common local rest frame" - a "preferred" but nevertheless "local" frame - a contradiction in terms). At this point in time, a preferred frame is just one that MacM designates as such. There is no procedure for finding his preferred frames from which to judge "reality" as opposed to "illusions of motion".
11. MacM cannot give a formula for how the speed of light supposedly varies between frames.
12. In fact, MacM's magnificent theory has no mathematics at all, except the maths "borrowed" from special relativity - i.e. the bits he approves of. Interestingly, he is happy to talk of Lorentz factors and so on, even though the only established basis for such a thing is relativity. His own crazy ideas don't derive the Lorentz factor at all, and yet he uses it.
13. MacM doesn't understand how consequences such as length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity are logically derived from the postulates of SR. Therefore, he asserts that features of SR such as these can be wrong, even if the postulates of SR are correct.
14. MacM will assert that all of the points here are "negative innuendo" that do not represent his actual views.
15. MacM will assert that all "believers" in special relativity lack his capacity to analyse the theory. Instead, we are all indoctrinated and just believe everything we read in our physics textbooks. MacM, of course, is a unique visionary who has seen what nobody has seen in 100 years - the obvious (to MacM) many and varied flaws in Einstein's theories.
16. MacM likes to divert the discussion to general relativity even though he wouldn't know a tensor from a penguin.
17. MacM claims to know all about the Global Positioning System, even though its operation requires an understanding of GR. He claims the GPS system uses "preferred frames", and that this proves all his wacky ideas to be correct.
And that's just for starters.
Anyway, if you want to engage with him, good luck.