I have ceased trying to persuade you for reasons already stated, but will correct your false statements about what I have asserted or have been doing.
...you and others only want to recite some BS from the theory being challenged. That does not rebut the claim.
Only claims I am rebutting are yours, made in post 93 that tell one must go back in time to discover the "last Common Rest Frame" CRF to calculate the relative time dilation between two clocks, a & b, both now without any accelerations but with a relative velocity, Vab. Standard SR does not need this historical information but simply inserts Vab in the time dilation formula, TD = SR( ) or in this case, TD = SR(Vab).
But yes it is true I do recite some BS of a theory that is being challenged. Namely I quote or "recite" you instructions for how that TDab should be calculated. I will recite it (the BS theory) again now:
If C was the last CRF, then compute separately the TDs using the velocities of each clock wrt C. I.e. TDac = SR(Vac) and TDbc = SR (Vbc). Then subtract to find the MacM SR version of TDba. I.e. TDba = [TDbc - TDac] which is not equal to the standard SR's computed TDba as the formula SR( ) is highly non-linear.
Furthermore as pointed out in post 612, with two cases, a very trivial change (Only a 1 meter move that was so slow it took 100 years in case 2 instead of both a & b being at mutual rest in frame P as in case 1.) dramatically changes the value that MacM's SR computes (in case 1 vs. case 2) for the TDba later when both a & b have been inertially coasting for a million years in frames A & B.
This dramatic change is due to the fact than in case 1 the last CRF is P, but in case 2 the last CRF is an earlier one, C. And the fact that the relative velocity between frames P & C is large, say 0.6C. Recall that in case 2 clock b moved CONTINUIOUSLY on a table one meter and so slowly it took 100 years to complete the 1 meter move, but this movement disallows frame P from being the CRF in case 2 as b was never at rest in frame P with clock a which remained fixed exactly where it landed for the 100 years until both accelerated up to their final inertial frames, A & B. (Actually clock b was never at rest in any frame during that 100 years as when it "landed" on the table, it was still moving at 1.5cm/yr but with
steady continuous deceleration, b came to be going at 0.5cm/yr just before it blast off to end up in frame B.)
So to continue illustrating numerically with Vpc =0.6C, let’s assume the final coasting velocities wrt frame P are: Vap = 0.05C and Vbp = 0.15C making their relative velocity, Vbc = 0.1C and standard SR used 0.1C for both cases 1 & 2. I.e. TDba = SR(0.1) =TDab. (The relative Vba may not be exactly 0.1C but I am only illustrating and if is O.0997C instead that is not important.)
However MacM's SR gets vastly different TDs for the two cases as P is the last CRF for case 1 and C is the last CRF for case 2, so I'll add either 1 or 2 after these different MacM TDs. I.e. I will now calculate TDba1 and TDba2 but first I need to compute for case 2, Vbc and Vac. (I'm too lazy to do it exactly but know Vac < 0.6C + 0.05C as simple velocity addition is not correct with such high speeds. I also know that Vac > 0.6C, so just to illustrate I take Vac =0.63C. Likewise, for same reasons, including I am lazy and this is only an illustration, I will guess that Vbc is about 0.7C. (Anyone who wants can grind thru the correct SR formula for adding to co-linear speeds, but they will end up with long, inconvenient, multi-digit values)
Thus MacM's SR computation procedure, TDba = [TDbc - TD ac], gives for:
Case 1: TDba1 = {SR(Vbp) -SR(Vap)} = SR(0.15C) - SR(0.05C)
And
Case 2: TDba2 = {SR(Vbc) -SR(Vac)} = SR(0.7C) - SR(0.63C)
These are dramatically different* due mainly to MacM SR needing to change from Case 1's CRF = P to CRF = C for case 2 and fact Vpc = 0.6C, or any large fraction of C.
Standard SR has none of MacM's "1 meter move in 100 years" a million years ago makes a huge difference nonsense.
Standard SR computes TDba = SR(0.1) for both cases. Made blue for future reference to the results.
SUMMARY:
Yes, I did "recite" BS - your post 93 BS to show I followed YOUR procedure EXACTLY.
... you claim all clocks always tick in synch regardless of motion and in the other post you clearly state it ticked slower and accumulated less time.
I have NEVER even mentioned "synch" (nor “simultaneity,” nor “space contraction”, “LC” etc., nor “reciprocity, ” nor “symmetry,” nor "see," nor "observes" for that matter. All your assertions that I did are YOUR fabrications.)*
Nor did I "clearly state it ticked slower" In fact I have several times stated exactly the opposite: Namely, ALL GOOD CLOCKS HAVE THE SAME INTRINSIC TICK RATE." I even went into some detail telling that for example, a cesium clock counts cycles of a cesium radiation line until # cycles have occurred and that is a second. If one in some other frame also counts # cycles to define a different second, the frequency of cesium radiation must change as one chance frames - that violates the concept that physics is the same in all inertial frames as only way the frequency could be different is if the cesium atom energy levels change. This is particularly silly in the case of hydrogen energy levels as they can be calculated with Quantum Theory and agree with measurement to about 10 significant figures, as I recall.
To keep this fantastic agreement one would thus need to postulate that even a theory must change as you change frames!
How silly can you get?
You can stop putting words in my mouth as I will not be diverted to discuss any of the things like "synch", “space contraction” etc. but stick to the discussion of time dilation in a scenario that exposes your silly BS theory of post 93 that thinks TD depends on long past history and CRF. I.e.
Since showing mathematically in my post 198 that your post 93 methodology leads self contraction, I have concentrated on the above scenario where clock b, ALMOST comes to rest with clock a in "case 2" and does exactly come to rest with clock a in "case 1" as this clearly exposes the silliness of your post 93 "compute separately using V wrt the last CRF and then subtract" procedure. (Movement so slow that humans cannot even see it moving by watching all day long can change what is the last CRF and dramatically alter time dilations at a later time if calculated by the MacM version of SR.)
This scenarios exposes the silliness of your whole basic concept that history (V wrt last CRF) is more important than current conditions (relative V) to calculate the current time dilation. I can understand why your refuse to respond to it or even comment with a denial stating that I have misunderstood your post 93 procedure.
------------------
*If I did mention any of these, it was like here, only to deny having mentioned them.