Tim88

I think that you're on the right track. The inequalities are based on shaky assumptions as Jaynes showed - http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-015-7860-8_1? [edit: you can also find it at ref.66 of http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/node1.html ] In any case, experiments that supposedly proved non-locality or "non-reality" were subsequently successfully simulated with local realistic variables, see for example De Raedt's latest paper on that topic - https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.05237v1 . See also the physics FAQ, especially the last paragraph which is independent of later experimental progress: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html

I already explained in great detail how the philosophy of Lorentz, Poincare, Langevin and Einstein (ca. 1905 - 1925 at least) worked. Surely you are aware of the fact that they promoted SR (and GR). Maybe you hold that they were all schizophrenic?? However, I suddenly realized that this whole discussion is nonsense. For the only thing that each of us knows with 100% certainty, so that it's not a theory but absolute fact, is that we (singular, for we can only know of ourself and not the others) are living. Who said "I think, thus I am"? And that implies a form of presentism. In other words, the starting point of philosophy - before even contemplating any theories - is the fact of that form of presentism. Note, your link tells me: "We are sorry ! The URL does not match any resource in our repository."

Maybe not; but as you didn't comment (post #71), I'm not sure. Do you still think that relativistic presentism is incompatible with relativity?

Indeed, clearly not! - assuming that you call the way Poincare and Langevin (and even Einstein around 1920) interpreted "time" (as was elaborated here and in other threads) as "presentism". Those views were certainly not "eternalist". And I trust that by now I have given ample examples how that works in the "mother" thread.

It's a bit off topic, but I'll still comment. Any remaining interest from my part in "block" philosophy is by now totally gone, thanks to the parallel discussion. "Cover ups": as a student I was fooled into thinking that I was taught Newton's mechanics or Maxwell's theory at school, including their interpretations. In fact, their interpretations were skillfully brushed under the carpet. Similarly, at the open day of my university a co-worker of the cosmology department tried to explain to the general public that according to Einstein, gravity is "spacetime curvature" as he showed on a big elastic cloth with heavy balls that deform the cloth. So I informed him of the fact (which by chance I had seen in a bookstore one week earlier) that Einstein disliked that phrasing because it gives the wrong idea, as if there is some kind of fourth dimension in which space can bend.

The direction of motion is irrelevant; it's a function of relative speed. The Lorentz transformation is chosen in the direction of the speed. It was based on that understanding that Einstein could write "It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line" in §4 of http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ A practical consequence is that the clocks in GPS satellites are set to run at different rates than the "proper" rate of unadjusted clocks, such that they are in tune with the clocks on earth.

Most physics books fail to define time. However, the one that I coincidentally picked up agrees with you: it explains that "time dilation" implies that physical processes take longer (on a "moving" body, according to a "rest" system) (Alfonso&Finn). One might say that the mystery is not "time", but the lack of understanding of "time".

Regretfully you are perhaps the only one currently active on scienceforums.net with sufficient detailed GR + QM knowledge to discuss those issues. And it will probably be unclear if, or in what way, they relate to the metaphysics. Thus you would risk a lack of response, even less than the meager response I got to my elaborations here above (although some appreciation was communicated to me in private).

Mordred, there isn't any disagreement about the math. The math is based on 19th century experiments which showed that Newton's absolute time, on which all observers agree, could not be correct. That led to the so-called "local time" concept. Maybe that's what you mean with "variable time"? However, there happen to be different interpretations of that variable time, and those same opposing interpretations are possible (and perhaps occurred) concerning Newton's absolute time. And may I remind you of the fact that this is a spin-off of a thread that is based on interpreting the math? You appear to object to needless reinterpretations of models. However, this is just what happened a number of times - sometimes with a cover-up of the original interpretation. What to think of that?

I don't think that fields should be treated as a medium; it's a subtly different concept. Einstein was aware of that, for he phrased the ether as "bearer" or "seat" of electromagnetic fields. PS I found back a technical paper by Schmelzer that examines in detail how Lorentzian metaphysics affects interpretation of GR (it re-derives the GR equations starting from Lorentz ether): https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 Regretfully much of it is above my head.

Coming back to this thread, I was going to add that, regretfully, my opinion may be influenced by the fact that I very strongly like to think that I have a free will - despite my attempts to not fall in the trap of wishful thinking. However Else already answered: No. But one can answer the question if a meaningful concept of free will fits to determinism. [..] OK, so if I correctly understand your thinking, you assume that you do have a free will - that our will is not fully determined by "outside" factors (including the electrochemical processes in our body). That implies a certain amount of true "indeterminism" in our brains. But I now wonder if there really can't be made a logical argument for determinism, to our personal disappointment. We are familiar with chaotic processes which are fully determinate; only we humans cannot predict their outcome in practice, giving the illusion of pure randomness, that the results are in-determined (not sure if I used the correct definitions of those words, but no doubt you got the gist of it). In other words, we already have a satisfying explanation of apparent "true randomness" by means of determinate processes. The anthropocentric argument that we cannot determine (predict) what will happen is meaningless in this context. Inversely, to my knowledge we have no logical model or explanation of how "truly" random or indeterminate results could be produced. Theoretically it's reasonable to prefer an explanation over no explanation. Good one robin - I had not thought of that yet. Yes, I agree - and that adds rather well to my last post here above.

That's where it goes wrong: You forgot to re-synchronize the clocks in the train to the "moving frame". Without that, those on board train A would not have noticed that the clocks on board train B each seemed to be ticking at a slower rate.

a. Once more: it appears that for many the label "presentism" is an idea that is so strongly related to Newtonian classical physics that it is incompatible with modern physics. Strangely enough this is apparently not the case with "eternalism", even though that concept is probably just as old. It may well be that over the centuries more has been written about presentism by means of Newtonian ideas, so that those two concepts got intermingled and the term has become associated with additional ideas. Mixing concepts from classical physics and philosophers with relativistic physics only leads to confusions and the shooting down of straw men. I prevented that confusion upfront in my first post. b. That particular Wikipedia's article is a mess, as indicated by the warning at the top of the page and the related discussion page. However, it admits that there are of course different "versions of presentism" and apart of the false claim about SR it's maybe not too bad. Earlier we had a look at its sister article on eternalism, according to which presentism adheres to the (Newtonian) concept of time as a "flow" - a moving now. I don't adhere to such a paradoxical concept of time and there is no need for it. However, the statement there according to which presentism "argues that only the present exists", is IMHO a good description of presentism without classical baggage, and which certainly is compatible with relativity. However, I too hastily grouped those overview articles with the other ones that you cited earlier. The article on eternalism claims that presentism "seems difficult to reconcile" with SR, but next it shows why it is not difficult to reconcile with SR. That part was added later to the article.

Right. On top of that, even Bell's Theorem has a difficult time; every now and then new papers appear in which theoretical local hidden variables reproduce the predictions of QM, just like the real Bell experiments that could be scrutinized. Regretfully many (maybe most real Bell experiments are not open to verification due to absence of the data. I have no strong opinion if there is indeterminism in the world. Generally physics appears to function with cause and effect. However some processes look truly random. As a result I simply don't know if we have a free will or not. Can such a thing be proven?

IMO length and time measurement are not affected by Absolute Space as such, but by the effect of electro-magnetic propagation. When an EM wave is formed in a moving system, the propagation of the wave is independent of the motion of the system. That means that the centers of all the EM waves stay in one single frame wherein the waves propagate as growing spheres. But since the shape of all the objects depends on EM forces which thus propagate independently, the moving objects (including rulers and clocks) are affected in such a way that in there own frame, the propagation of the EM waves will always appear to be isotropic and their measured speed will always be the same (=c), despite of any change in velocity of the object's frame. Yes, thanks bvr! We fully agree; and that's why I did not say "affected by Absolute Space", but "affected by means of Absolute Space". Without some kind of medium (or "background"), no fields or waves are possible. Viewing matter as "waves" matches rather well with Quantum field theory, in which matter is perceived as field excitations.

The problem was caused by the fact that you did not -and still don't!- understand that we were saying the same thing, even after I told you. The conversation went along the lines of: "an apple is not a cat because a cat miauws; an apple is a fruit" "BUT you did not PROVE that an apple is a fruit" "Of course I didn't - positively proving taxonomy is hardly possible. We can only disprove that an apple is a cat." "Just because you can disprove something, it doesn't make what you say correct." "Now you effectively repeat what I just explained to you..." "No, you did not prove it!" And so on, ad infinitum - like a bad game. I thus could not escape the conclusion that, regretfully, communication between us is not useful. As I dislike such games, I will stop communicating with you. Take care Studiot.

If I correctly understand you, the light bulb on the right (the source) is supposed to be in rest, so that the receiver is moving. Correct? Then I agree with you, and I likely understood your issue from the start (see once more my post #4). Did you have a look at the Doppler formula? For that case you have, as correctly explained in Wikipedia, fr/f0 = (c+vr)/c Further, the time dilation effect makes that according to the observer in rest, the perceived frequency by the moving detector is increased by the time dilation factor - just as you say. It will thus appear less red-shifted than according to the Doppler equation here above. Combining Doppler with time dilation yields the so-called "relativistic Doppler" equation. Did you try to work it out? I just now verified it, it only takes a couple of minutes. If you don't know how, just ask, and I or someone else will show you.

Sure: That citation from my first post was in one sentence what I try to convey -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK then, I'll give here now an extended overview including a more detailed car example, of how one conceptual model helps to make sense of relativistic physics. You can just choose the topic of interest. Physical effects such as inertia and time dilation can be modeled as caused by an underlying Lorentzian 3D background (non-material Lorentz "ether" / "vacuum" / "Absolute Space"), but a more widespread view is that they are caused by a Minkowskian 4D background in which "space" and "time" form a single substantial entity (Minkowski block universe). Both models are proposed as CAUSING the space-time metric. One might ask, what is the practical difference? I'll here elaborate how a modern variant of an Absolute Space in "action" can help to understand classical as well as relativistic effects as caused by motion through Space; this is basically the view of reality as Lorentz used when teaching GR. Additions by others are welcome, and I invite those who adhere to some kind of Absolute Spacetime concept, to post the corresponding alternative explanation(s) for making sense of our observations. ABSOLUTE SPACE model of reality Classical physics originated from a Newtonian Absolute Space in which inertial frames are postulated to be in uniform translational motion relative to Space. It also has an independently "flowing" Absolute Time. In my opinion it's obviously a misconception to view time as "flowing", as "flow" implies ds/dt which contains itself "time"; the "flow of time" confusion may stem from the perceived "flow" of physical processes. Consequently there can also be no "arrow of time", as time does not traverse distances. Time is just as unsubstantial as for example temperature. How this works with GR will be illustrated next. The Lorentz transformations relate to Newtonian "inertial frames" and originated from a Lorentz ether concept which is similar to Newton's Absolute Space. Time is not anymore independent from Space, as it is affected by motion through Space. Einstein attempted to get rid of SR's inertial frames by means of General relativity, as he hoped to obtain a theory in which also acceleration is truly relative. However GR did not attain that goal, despite Einstein's early claims that it did: we can generally distinguish acceleration from gravitation so that imaginary "inertial frames" can be set up just as in Newton's mechanics. We may therefore still suppose that a 3D "background" exists that affects and determines our measurements. Absolute Space is directly associated with distances and lengths. But different from Newton's mechanics, measurements of distances and lengths are affected by means of Absolute Space. In contrast with distances, time is a measure for the progress of physical processes; however our measurements of time are similarly affected by means of Absolute Space. And just as in the old theory, the absolute state of motion (speed) cannot be detected but a change of motion with respect to Space can be detected. 1. Newton argued for this with his BUCKET EXPERIMENT: in this model of reality, the inertial force is explained as the result of the water's co-acceleration with the bucket relative to Space. Compare also De Sitter: even in an otherwise empty universe, rotation of an object is likely to result in inertial effects. GR has now sufficiently been verified to strongly doubt truly Machian alternatives such as proposed by Brans-Dicke. Inertia can even be understood in a straightforward manner as self induction for the simple case of the electron (QM improves on this quantitatively); this fact suggests the possibility that one day a unified theory may be found that explains all inertia as due to change of field energies. Other improvements to Newton's Space following from Maxwell and Lorentz are that radiation does not propagate like particles but as waves (or, since QM, like wavelets), so that the speed of light is determined by the Space that it propagates through. Matter is affected by motion just the same as Heaviside's moving EM fields. In addition, effects of ROTATING DISCS are similarly easy to intuitively understand by means of Absolute Space: 2. SAGNAC EFFECT. For simplicity, let's first pretend that the axle is at rest in Space. If now laser light is sent along the rim in both directions, the light will, just like any real wave, propagate at a fixed speed through Space. During that time the detector will move away from the one ray and towards the other ray, so that the interference pattern is a function of rotation speed relative to Absolute Space. 3. EHRENFEST PARADOX. Lorentz contraction only occurs in the direction of motion. If the disc would be at rest in Space, then a measuring chord will be slightly contracted as it is laid along the rim, but not as it is laid along the diameter. Consequently the circumference will appear to be more than 2pi times the diameter (and there isn't any paradox to start with). The combined effects of Lorentz contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity (as elaborated next), assure that the same phenomena occur with rotating discs in any inertial reference system. 4. FAST CAR We are now going to make use of inertial reference systems related to a fast car that is driving over the ground, and we consider how we can understand the observed phenomena to be due to motion through Space. The non-inertial motion of the ground will be neglected in the following examples. Similar to classical mechanics, we are free to choose the landscape as pretended "rest frame" (neglecting rotation), in which case the car is "moving" (even if we are inside). But different from common practice, we assume here that the car conductor has set up an inertial reference system according to the assumption that the car is in rest and the ground is moving under it. For clarity, in the following illustration the car drives at an impossible crazy speed for a contraction factor of 2. However we'll assume a more reasonable speed of 300m/s (1080km/h) for the calculated effects. That allows the use of simpler equations: the Lorentz contraction factor is now 1-0.5v2/c2 = 1 - 0.5E-12. I'll follow here the analysis methods of Einstein-1905 and Bell, sticking to a single convenient inertial reference frame. Let's say that there are clocks c1 and c2 above two openings in the floor of the car, and these clocks have been "Einstein synchronized". The car driver now drops two balls, presumably simultaneously, so that from the car's perspective : ________________________ | | | |_ | ___ c1 c2 ___| / \-- ----2m---- ---/ \ _______\___/__o__________o___\___/_________ <- v According to the car the balls were dropped simultaneously at 2m distance, so that they also hit the moving ground at 2 m distance. According to the ground however the car is length contracted, and the balls are not dropped at the same time so that they hit the ground at different times. From the ground's perspective: ____________ | | | | | | v ----> / \- -----o-/ \ ____________\_/_o_______\_/_____________________________________ ____________ | | | | | | v -----> / \- ----- -/ \ ________________o__________\_/_______o_\_/____________________________ Now, according to the Absolute Space (Stationary ether) world view, this is what really happens, physically: When you are driving your car, in general both your car and the landscape are in motion, resulting in what may be figuratively called different perspectives of the same reality. This is an essential point to keep in mind before reading on. For simplicity of explanation we'll first pretend in this introduction that the landscape is, by pure chance, in "absolute rest". a. The car is then Lorentz contracted as caused by the car's motion through space. This would be expected if fundamentally all matter consists of some kind of waves. In this example one could (in principle) measure that the car is Lorentz contracted. b. The car's synchronization is messed up due to the car's linear acceleration, as can be easily understood by working out the timing errors from the light pulses as they propagate through Space (we may ignore the air). Thus the car's synchronization is chosen such that it seems as if the one-way speed of light (also called "closing speed") is the same in both directions. According to the ground (here by chance the true "view"), it is obvious that the car's synchronization is wrong. c. As per the relativity principle these effects combine in such a way, that the car conductor can measure (in principle) that the ground is slightly length contracted, by 1 picometer. According to a ground observer, the second ball fell a distance of 2 picometer too far due to the car's synchronization error; accounting for the car's length contraction, the distance between the balls is thus 2meter + 1 picometer. The car driver, assuming that he is in rest in Space, measures that a ground length of 2 meter + 1 picometer fits in his distance of 2m rest length. Accordingly he concludes that it's the ground that is length contracted. Of course, the car driver may still choose to regard himself in motion, in which case he'll measure that the ground is not length contracted but instead his car is length contracted. And just as in Newtonian mechanics, the same relationship occurs between two reference systems that are both in absolute uniform translational motion. In other words, in the general case both inertial reference systems provide in general a somewhat "distorted" perspective on reality, with the distortion here explained instead of hand waved away as a "perspective" effect due to "relativity". Note that these combined effects are not a "conspiracy", as the Lorentz transformations follow from the conservation laws. d. Moreover, in this special case the clocks of the car truly tick slower; this is physically understandable by means of the "light clock" illustration. Due to the car's (mis)synchronization of clocks (in principle together with its length contraction, but that's negligible at this speed), it seems from the car's perspective as if instead the ground clocks run slow. This happens as follows. It takes 6.67ms on a ground clock for the car distance from C1 to C2 to pass over it. During that time, the car's clocks advance by the same time minus 3.3fs, becase the car's clock run in reality slower. But as C2 has been set 6.7fs ahead of C1, the car driver will measure a time interval of +6.7-3.3 = 3.3fs more "car time"; consequently, to him it looks just the other way round. In other words, the car driver measures that the ground clock is "slow". In general no reference system corresponds to Newton's "Absolute Time"; all show Lorentz's "local time". And we noticed that relativity of simultaneity cannot explain length contraction and time dilation, however it does explain the reciprocity of these effects between inertial systems. We now turn it into a "TWIN PARADOX" scenario. Just as with the earlier examples, a paradox won't even appear. The specially conceived racing car will take a turn and drive back without changing speed, such that both clocks keep the same speed (note that it may be difficult for a car to keep both clocks at exactly the same speed when going straight, and even more so when taking a turn!). e. On the way back, the car is just as much length contracted as before and ideally the clocks are correctly tuned for the new inertial "rest" system, as can be easily understood by considering that in this special case the clocks underwent an identical speed-as-function-of-time influence by motion through Space. f. The car now passes a clock on the ground that it passed on the outbound leg after the synchronization. After 2x30km, the driver will notice that his clocks have "lost" 0.1 ns on the ground clock. That is as expected, since his clocks (in this simplified case) truly ticked slower all the time. As the Lorentz transformations form a group similar to the Galilean transformations, the exact same phenomena will be observed between a car in motion relative to a ground that itself is also in motion. While this point may be less intuitive due to our limited mental capability to conceive such complexity of different relative motions and effects, it is not too difficult to verify this fact mathematically. The relativity principle is the same as in Newtonian relativity, but the transformation equations are different. A consequence of the different standards and clock settings, is that the velocities according to one system are not (or only approximately) equal to the sum of that system's velocity and the measured velocities with that system. That's commonly know as high speed "velocity addition", but it is correctly understood as a system transformation of velocities (the rules of mathematics are not violated in a "space warp"!). As a matter of fact, that was already demonstrated in the car example: according to the car driver, a light ray propagates at c relative tot he car. But the same light ray does not propagate at v+c according to a ground observer. We can thus understand why the transformation of velocities of objects between systems in relative motion is not a simple sum as in classical mechanics. Important philosophical consequences of the "Absolute Space" view of reality are that time and distance have not been totally robbed from their classical, intuitive aspects; however, physical length in the direction of motion as well as time rate are affected by motion through Space. In other words, only Space is causal in that view. Moreover, the classical, Newtonian concept of "time" had to be abandoned, and only a relativistic kind of "presentism" can be maintained. Absolute simultaneity is not accessible to human observation, we must settle for pragmatic "relative simultaneity". It should perhaps be noted that while the effects of SR have been well established, this is not entirely the case with GR; theoretical research on alternative theories is continuing. Nevertheless the gravitational fields of all mass (incl. the "relativistic mass" from radiation and EM fields) certainly have absolute effects on the speed of light as well as on clock rates. In a recent post I clarified how Einstein first derived gravitational time dilation These effects have been verified as follows. 5. GRAVITY PROBE A (Vessot-1980) : an atomic clock is sent up to high altitude after which it comes down in almost free fall. a. At the start, the clock ticks at the same speed as clocks on Earth. b. At its highest point, the clock is nearly in rest but less affected by the Earth's gravitational field: a higher potential energy corresponds to a higher clock frequency that of clocks on the ground - gravitational time dilation was measured. c. When falling down, just before impact the clock is again at the same hight but at high speed. Here the remaining effect was purely SR time dilation, and so the ground station measured a reduced clock rate after subtracting the assumed "classical" Doppler effect. It maybe worth noting that for the theoretical case that the ground is in "absolute rest", the SR effect relates to "absolute" kinetic energy, in contrast to the GR effect which relates to gravitational potential energy. 6. GRAVITATIONAL LENSING a. Light bending: When light passes nearby a star such as the Sun, the gravitational field bends the light towards the star somewhat like an optical lens, due to a gradient in propagation speed; the tricky point here is that according to GR, the effect is anisotropic. As a matter of fact, Einstein used the Huygens construction for predicting the effect (the corresponding Wikipedia article fails to inform the readers on this point and suggest the exact contrary). b. Shapiro delay: radiation that passes near to a heavy mass such as the Sun will not only bend but also delay. This is immediately understood as due to the slower propagation speed in the gravitational field (inconsistently, the corresponding Wikipedia article mentions the slowdown of light that is denied in the other one). 7. SINGULARITIES - Black holes: "true" or fully developed black holes are a modern extension of GR, outside of the intended use - and Einstein found the idea unphysical. The Absolute Space model of reality would have difficulty with the inclusion of an "inside" of black "holes"; however, according to a number of physicists who in recent years performed combined QM-GR calculations and simulations, "true" black holes cannot form - just as one would intuitively guess from the Absolute Space model. I hope that the advantage of such an intuitive model for understanding is obvious from the given examples. Even if one disagrees with some aspect of it, it's transparent what one disagrees with, and why. I'll leave it for others to elaborate on alternative explanations of such cases according to Minkowski's (or their own) view of reality.

Maybe you thought that - but instead you wrote: "But you didn't show that yours is correct". I was the first to stress, in post #55, that establishing the truth of a philosophy is impossible. Thus your "but" didn't make any sense; nor your thereupon following statement in post #56 that "just because you can disprove someone else's statement, it doesn't make yours correct" - as that was already implied in what I told you in the very sentence you cited! This is just ridiculous. I now reached the conclusion that regretfully, you and I cannot have a reasonable discussion.

Sigh indeed! I did not comment on (2) either; I just left it in for completeness. Before you said that it follows from simple logical reasoning that the truth of (1) does not establish the truth of (3), I had already explained to you that nobody suggests that the truth of (1) establishes the truth of (3) as no-one can prove philosophical ideas. Although I find it very difficult to believe, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was a total misunderstanding from your side. Let's keep it at that.

J.C.MacSwell already gave the correct answer, but maybe a few more words can be helpful. The point to keep in mind is that pure Doppler is asymmetric, depending on who is supposedly moving. It's the main effect that in both perspectives results in a redshift. You can't change facts of observation due to a different interpretation! Combining the differing Doppler effects with the contrary time dilation effects, results in the same "relativistic Doppler" equation - as it should be. Most useful is if you try the derivation for yourself - it's quite easy to do.

Yes, exactly. It was you who made me realize that in order to make (somewhat) sense, Monkowski's Spacetime reality must add a dynamic time on top of it's 4th dimension (which Einstein rejected) in order to "unfreeze" it. As you have been soaked in explanations by "block timers" for some time on this forum, do you think that I correctly described this in point 1. Inertia? If not, how would you put it? It is my view that only by "test running" such conceptual models, we can judge their eventual usefulness for making sense of the physics. Further, I realize that could be useful to add another explanation attempt, the ether according to Einstein. However nobody seems to be sure how to understand his concept, and maybe it never could work. I now consider to start a thread on that question, and to only add it here if we can discover some useful concept that he might have had in mind.

This is suddenly serious. What follows on this will determine eventual action from my side concerning further communication with Studiot. Here's the exact sequence of events. Note in Studiot's summary in post #61 here above: - the misrepresentation of the sequence of events - the misrepresentation by means of omitting the key post by me, in which I reminded him that nobody can prove philosophical claims. I'll try once more. In presentist models, time is not a 4th dimension like distance; the things that can be moving according to such an interpretation of reality, are physical objects. Motion v over distance d implies a conceptual missing parameter, which concept we call "time" t (more precisely, here it refers to duration). Although our internal navigation system may confound these things, time can obviously not move in any presentist view including model, incl. Absolute Space: it's the wrong parameter! "Now" is just a "snapshot" that we make in our brains of a situation that progresses, and immediately after is relabeled "past". The Spaceball movie here above correctly depicts that fact (at 1:00). It's different of course with block universe time, as in that 4D Spacetime view it's a 4th dimension like distance.

Yes, exactly - any first year philosopher should be able to discern that that's what I told you. Surely you know that the phrase "This theory depends upon the idea of time as an extended thing and has been confirmed by experiment" is baseless. That editor was begging the question as there is no evidence that "time" is substantial, even less an "extended thing". We had already discovered that Wikipedia's "presentism" is not compatible with Lorentz. If you like to cite Wikipedia, the article on what there is called "LET" may be more appropriate for understanding the compatibility of 3D Space with SR and the role of "time" in that.

I understood it differently, as expressed in my attempt to explain inertia and rotating discs by means of the Spacetime view. The two "times" of that view are clearly of different kinds; and the one like length is frozen. What matters here is if you or others think that it somehow can be helpful for understanding relativisitic physics by means of Minkowski's view of reality. "Time" is definitely part of the presentism topic [edit: however I now get the impression that you would like to start a general discussion on the topic "TIME" - that would deserve a thread of its own!]. Here we are not discussing time, but proposing explanations for relativistic physics. The discussion here focuses on the explanations of relativistic physics; it seems that some of you completely forgot about that. I already included the "double time" issue in my explanation by means of the block universe; if you or someone else disagrees with how I phrased the Minkowski explanation of inertia and Sagnac, please improve on it. Note also the still lacking Block universe explanation of the Ehrenfest disc.