Ok, well there is a difference there then. In AEST proper time is applicable to photons. It is just that they don't move through it. And I assume in AEST there is no distinction between lightlike objects and timelike objects. And that there is no need to perform the operation you did in
I...
So photons don't move through proper time in TR?
I thought Montanus was pointing out that in the Minkowski Diagram (Fig 4 attachment #55) the time is actually the parameter time, and in TR that is proper time I thought. And I thought the photons did move in that time in TR. If that is so then...
1) The points do make it meaningful that there is a physical distinction between proper time and the time parameter in the model, even if it isn't possible to establish what is at rest in absolute spacetime. Thus a photon would be thought to move in absolute time, but not in proper time.
2)...
The odd properties comment that was one of the statements was regards to nonlocality and non-causality.
Yes an absolute spacetime means that actually being at rest would not being a matter of convention. But without any experimental way of determining whether an object is at rest in relation to...
I have now bought the paper Proper-Time Formulation of Relativistic Dynamics which appeared in a journal listed on Clarivate.
The theory does contain the postulate that: in the absence of gravitation all objects move with a four dimensional Euclidean velocity equal to the speed of light in a...
Yes, the topic is a physics theory. So I am discussing it on a physics forum to see if there was a known problem with it. If there isn't then it is of philosophical interest.
That isn't strange. But neither is that particularly relevant. The issue here is that the author in question wrote 12 papers on a certain topic in reputable journals that appeared on Clarivate. I was quoting from a paper on the *same* topic, by the same author, that appeared in a journal that...
Because it is a question about physics. And the person I was quoting was a physicist that has at least 12 papers on the topic published in physics journals that are on Clarivate. What I am surprised at is that the other physicists on here seem to dismiss such work almost out of hand. What I...
It isn't just re-writing the math of standard SR because as you can see from the list of papers above one is called "General relativity in an absolute Euclidean space-time". And it uses flat Euclidean geometry even in situations with gravitation, and has the concept of absolute time.
I can't...
So regardless of whether a person writes papers for journals which you count as acceptable, and thus is a presumably trusted author, you seem to be saying that nothing they have written other than what was in the papers in those journals can be quoted. So no quoting from books, or letters or...
Were you of the mind that the length of the lines wouldn't be the same, or that them being the same doesn't indicate that those events would be simultaneous in the absolute spacetime of AEST? Or was it perhaps me using the phrase "simultaneous in absolute time"?
Sorry my mistake, I used the term proper time to mean absolute time.
So let me re-write. As I understand it, theories like AEST allow a definition of simultaneity in absolute time. But if A and B collide then they are obviously simultaneous in absolute time. If A and B collide again, again...