Tony2018

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is logically wrong. As shown by Galileo several hundred years ago. Not sure why you are incapable of understanding this.

[p.s. reported as sock puppet.]

Do you mean this? Galileo said that without rocking, on a smooth sea; any observer doing experiments below the deck would not be able to tell whether the ship was moving or stationary.

I can also understand this.

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't think there is anything wrong in that math. (If so, I have missed it.) But he insists that you can only derive that if you establish an absolute reference frame to start with. Which is not true. He appears to derive the Lorentz transform with reference to only relative motion to A and B first, and then says it can't be done without an absolute frame. Which doesn't make much sense. But I haven't tried to wade through all his (slightly incoherent) arguments yet.

I read his article more carefully.
1. his logic should be to compare A and B in space, and it is necessary to have the participation of C, otherwise the state of A and B can not be clearly stated. Space-time is a very suitable C. At least it's logically reasonable.
2. from his analysis of Lorenz transformation, the implied reference point O, O', is also clear.
3. the relationship between t and t' that he derives is different from that of Einstein. Are they all right?
4. according to his derivation, A and B refer to each other, and the conclusions are different.

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

I have made an addition in case you missed it. Otherwise, I'll let the experts give a more indepth answer and reasoning.

Your description is very abstract. Do you have any specific examples and rigorous mathematical derivation like the Lorenz transformation?

Can you point out where his Lorenz derivation is wrong?

      It looks very correct.

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Just a thought from a lay person.....SR is a special case or subset of  GR...GR requires spacetime. Why? Simply put spacetime in GR is gravity, as gravitation is simply described as the curvature/warping/twisting of said spacetime. Plus of course both SR and GR have been thoroughly tested and passed with flying colours.

But his Lorenz derivation looks very reasonable. His logical reasoning is also more rigorous. I'm a rookie. I may see only fur.

But Einstein told us that x=0, then 

Who can help me explain where he was wrong? I am in a perplexity. 

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/113238-whether-the-special-theory-of-relativity-needs-space-time/