Preston Guynn

I respect your opinions, but questioning GR is not my expertise and intention here. I would say cautiosly that GR has its merits and despite the alleged emerging problems it is still capble of describing a class of observable phenomena. No theory in physical sciences has ever been complete and unquestionable and the goal is to improve them as new facts come to light. When it comes to Tangherlini Transformations, I can derive them from first principles without GR in a way consistent with Einstein's STR in 1905 derivation of Lorentz Transformation. It does not matter to me what objections to GR are rised. Something must have been right in GR that Tangherlini's result matches mine.

The transformations defined in Tangherlini's paper are neither an alternative, nor equivalent to Lorentz transformations, because they don't leave the wave equation in flat spacetime invariant. History is one thing, technical content is another. How, historically, the Lorentz transformations were discovered doesn't have much to do with what they mean. That's why his statement about his transformations being consistent with the tests of special relativity is wrong, in fact, trivially wrong.

The Lorentz transformations are the linear transformations that leave the Minkowski metric invariant and are continuously connected to the identity transformation. Nothing more, nothing less. (Expressed this way they include rotations, boosts and translations.) The boosts in particular can be equivalently described as the linear transformations that mix the time coordinate and one spatial coordinate so as to leave the wave equation, in flat spacetime, invariant, thereby mapping a solution to the wave equation to another solution of the wave equation. Tangherlini's transformations don’t do that. They just parametrize a particular way of describing how to break invariance under global Lorentz transformations.

Of course they're a special case of general coordinate transformations, by construction; but that property, alone, doesn't single them out. They don't leave the wave equation in flat spacetime invariant, they do leave the wave equation in a particular class of curved spacetimes invariant-a standard exercise in general relativity. So the relevant question is, first of all, whether they define a subgroup of general coordinate transformations-or not; and, then, whether this particular class of curved spacetimes is of interest, or not (it may have naked singularities, for instance). Not all curved spacetimes are of equal interest. The reason that global Lorentz transformations are of particular interest is because they are symmetries of flat spacetime. The reason Tangherlini's transformations aren't as well known is that the spacetime geometry they leave invariant isn't as relevant. Once general relativity was understood, this point was, also. It would be a good idea to learn general relativity, e.g. from here, https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9712019

and stop pretending to live in the past. Special and general relativity are understood in detail, for decades now.

Stam Nicolis

Thank you for the clarification. However I never said TT are equivalent to LT but "an alternative to Lorentz Transformation". As you rightly describe they are not equivalent. However, they produce the same length contraction and time dilation, and the average round trip light speed isotropy, but one way speeds of light differ depending on directioin. More importantly there is no relativity of simultaneity. So far no one succesfully proposed a proper clock synchronisation method which in theory requires a signal of unlimited speed.

Tangherlini tried to come up with a solution which was synchronising to an external "preferred" system by Einstein method, then having systems moving relatively and synching clocks by direct contact with already synchronised clock. But I think this method has a few problems to be valid in general case nor is practical.

Stam Nicolis ,

there are some exceptions

Length contraction and time dilation are coordinate artifacts, that's why claims made about them aren't just wrong, they're maningless.

The only test of special relativity that isn't a coordinate artifact is the difference between the proper time of observers in spacetime, precisely because proper time is invariant under global Lorentz transformations-and isn't under Tangherlini's transformations. That proper time isn't invariant under general coordinate transformations isn't new.

Once more: Only the Lorentz transformations leave the Minkowski metric invariant and any other coordinate transformations-for instance, Tangherlini's-define a curved metric. This may not have been clear-for many people-a hundred years ago, there's no excuse in perpetuating mistakes now.

Stam Nicolis ,

>

Checking the results of experiments, the "twin effect" provides difference of timestamps of clocks previously set in absolute sync (set at the same timestamp in the same place) according to t' = γ-1t , where the primed was in motion (underwent a variation of speed v).

The two-way speed of light, yet another experimentally verified configuration (clock and mirror in one inertial frame), is valid in every nonaccelerated system (frame of reference) if and only if also the length contraction is a real non-reciprocal phenomenon.

Preprint Length contraction as a necessary consequence of the two-way...

you have the proper time as the real-time in Tangherlini directly as

t' = γ-1t

Andrew Wutke ,

that Tangherlini is not mentioned is an inconvenient truth for some, for some others an honest omission because the most of the ones who consider valid SR do not know alternatives.

Justo Pastor Lambare

Thank you for your contribution.

I agree with you that perpetuating claims for Special Relativity being wrong is incorrect. What may be wrong is how experts are trying to convince opponents. Tangherlini Transformations are a remarhable alternative to Lorentz transformations that stand out from infinitely many possible. THe difference is only in prescription of clock synchronisation method. Physics is not affected by changing synchronisation of clocks, but resulting equation can be more or less informative. TT tells you that length contraction is real and not reciprocal like that from TT. Same with time dilation.

While Einstein decided to force the speed of light being constant aaaaand isotropic by a clever stipo]ulation, Tangherlini transformation is happy with round trip average speed of light isotroipic which is true in LT. However, additional bonus is the same length contraction and time dilation minus all paradoxes that plagued physics for 120 years. None of the special relativity paradoxes are real. It is hard to understand that non-simultaneous setting of distant clocks creates illusions all explainable by the time offset.

There is more in Tangherlini transformations that meets the eye.

“…Frank R. Tangherlini …remarkable achievement is derivation of linear transformations known by his name as an alternative to Lorentz Transformation, which implement absolute simultaneity. He is also behind the "Tangherlini metric," ….”, etc. in the preface.

- really, as that follows, say, from “Tangherlini Transformation”, Tangherlini [and rather numerous other authors of “alternative transformations, though”] had rather vague imagination about what are transformations between relatively moving reference frames, and what are reference frames at all. Correspondingly from the transformations such evidently too strange consequences follow as implementation of “absolute simultaneity”, what simply violates the really fundamental Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle the “relativity of simultaneity” follows from which.

Reference frames, and utmost convenient and so practically unequally used in physical practice inertial reference frames, aren’t some abstract mathematical constructions, they are the sets of real material scaled rulers and specifically synchronized distant clocks [+ system of 3D coordinates], which are used at any/every experiments for measuring the practically absolutely necessary at experiments values of distances and time intervals of/between material objects/events/processes, which [values] are practically absolutely necessary primary data at decryption and analysis of what is measured at experiments else.

So, say, in practically every experiment really only one laboratory reference frame is established, the rulers and clocks are set in accordance with really correct Lorentz transformations, including, say, distant clocks are synchronized by using “Poincaré-Einstein synchronization”

- and in this case there are no any other frames, for which Tangherlini Transformation/synchronization would be applied.

Including Lorentz transformations are used in “mental” mode, when experimental data are analyzed not in the lab frame, but in some other more convenient frame, using in this case of the “center of mass frame” is utmost popular; while at using in such cases other transformations can result only in discovering of some strange things.

Etc….

Cheers

Andrew Wutke ,

Tangherlini proposed actual coordinate transformations that are well suited to account for the Sagnac effect and other effects without involving paradoxes.

There is only one true inertial frame at a time in any experiment, allowing there the isotropy of SOL nowhere else . The simultaneity is absolute, although the time measured by a moving clock is relative.

The "explanation" of Sagnac effect by SR involves a "time GAP" , the global desynchronization of clocks, Einstein synchronized, displaced along a disk.

That value can be always found on earth's surface whenever, for example, one wants to set in sync atomic clocks, exchanging signals along a parallel (GPS base station synchronization procedure). In such case one must consider the tangential speed v relevant to the parallel chosen and at the end he will find vL/c2 as the global desynchronization effect (where L is the length of the equator).

In order to have a global simultaneity domain, each GPS base station must consider, knowing its distance H from the other, that it must apply the additional delay of vH/c2 (anticipation if v is negative).

That works fine to find the value of the Sangac effect, as a first-order approximation, vL/c2 . It is more than enough for current technical purposes. For such an approximation the arrival time from both directions is vH/c2 more, in one direction, and vH/c2 less in the opposite one.

Basically there is a "symmetry".

SR assumes that γ*vH/c2 , is the offset between two clocks initially in sync that are brought to speed v, hence in agreement at the first order.

That relation involves symmetry also at higher orders, if one goes in one direction, it is only the sign of the speed that changes for the opposite direction.

At high speeds on the contrary, in the case of SAGNAC, there is no symmetry anymore of the arrival times between two clocks at distance H along the rim.

The arrival time of light between two clocks foreseen for a rotating platform from SAGNAC is vH/c2 *sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]

if we look at the term SD=sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]

for v>0 and v/c close to 1 SD diverges

for v

“…Tangherlini proposed actual coordinate transformations that are well suited to account for the Sagnac effect and other effects without involving paradoxes…”

- again, see SS post above, “Tangherlini Transformation” really has no relation to real physics, and were proposed by the author, who [and rather numerous other authors of “alternative transformations, though”] seems frankly thought that physics is only some mathematical exercises, so had rather vague imagination about what are transformations between relatively moving reference frames; and what are reference frames at all.

So any application of these transformations cannot result in something that would be useful in physics, while in this case in physics there exist completely unique – and quite sufficient – Lorentz transformations. Including that relates to “the Sagnac effects”, where [in interferometer] everything is in accordance with Lorentz transformations. So, say, at any experiments with Sagnac interferometers even velocity of Earth at motion around Sun was not observed – though that is well observed by other instruments,

- just completely analogously as that M&M interferometer could not do observe, which at that, say, at Earth rotation is to certain extent like to, though slow, a Sagnac interferometer.

That is another thing, that the really correct Lorentz transformations, as that rigorously scientifically shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read one of 3 main papers

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

- are completely applicable only if described by the transformation bodies/ systems of the bodies are rigid. If bodies in a system are free, the transformations would be applicable only limitedly, however that really isn’t essential, simply such systems, say, of distant free clocks, are practically useless if would be used as a reference frame.

On another hand, since in systems of free bodies the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle – and just so the Lorentz transformations as well – aren’t completely valid, that allows to observe the absolute motion and to measure absolute velocity in 3D XYZ space, which is fundamentally non-observable by any, including any Sagnac, interferometers, since they are rigid bodies;

- corresponding experiments were proposed yet in 2013-2016, more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible.

However – what is just important, as that rigorously scientifically proven in the SS&VT model, in this case it is enough to read one of 3 main papers

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

- Matter’s utmost universal “”kinematical” spacetime is fundamentally absolute [that rigorously by Poof by contradiction follows from that from the SS postulates that there is no absolute spacetime and that all/every frames are absolutely equally equivalent and legitimates senseless consequences follow, say, in the Dingle objection to the SR,] fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z, ct).

So in the spacetime some “absolute” frames can be, in principle, set, all instruments of which would be at rest in the 3DXYZ space, and all measured by the frame instruments physical parameters of material objects/events/effects/processes values are equal to real ones.

The absolute frames are rigid/Lorentzian frames by definition,

- whereas Poincaré in 1905 mathematically showed that Lorentz transformations form a “velocity group”, so any “Lorentzian” frames are traceable to each other, including to really completely correct absolute frames. Just therefore the Lorentzian lab frames [including Erath Gravity makes practically everything in humans practice be rigid systems] are successfully applied in physics.

Till physics doesn’t relate to some really fundamental problem, though…

Cheers

@Sergey Shevchenko

I partially agree with:

"rather numerous other authors of “alternative transformations, though” had rather vague imagination about what are transformations between relatively moving reference frames, and what are reference frames at all. "

For example, the revered authors Mansouri and Sexl called Lorentz Transformatio (LT) what was their Frankenstein :) Transformation which was a hybrid of TT and LT, then subbsequently removing what they added to TT only to recover TT and called it ALT. They did not know Tangherlini's work at that time, just made this up by mistake I hope.

The error as been discovered decades after the first publication by Rybicki [1].

There is nothing wrong with LT but they cause problems with common temporal logic.

There is nothing wrong with TT and this is better for our logic apart from the fact that TT is the best thing that happened to Special Relativity after 1905. Even Frank Tangherlini undervalued his own creation proposing a hybrid with LL. No wonder people stay away from TT. But there is more there than meets the eye.

Different tasks require different tools. Like arguing whether GMT is inferior to local time . One is good to navigate aircraft the other better not to be late for flight departure from Adelaide airport with time offset of 1/2 hours from the neighbour State of Victoria.

There is no point to argue time zones is nonsense, only because Brisbane to Sydney flight may take 1.5 hour one way and 1/2 hours back with no wind, judging by airports clock times.

By the same token you cannot say CMBR is a nonsense because LT tell you so, while with TT it is a logical necessity.

[1] Rybicki M. Mansouri-Sexl Test Theory: The Question of Equivalence between Special Relativity and Ether Theories. Progress in Physics, 2016, v. 12(1), 89-92.

@Andrew Wutke

- again, all - Tangherlini , Selleri, Eagle, Mansouri, Sexl, Marinov, Vargas, etc. really had/have rather vague/strange imagination about what are transformations between relatively moving reference frames, and what are reference frames at all; and so, really about what is physics at all, though.

In physics there cannot be other than Lorentz ones, transformations, though LT fundamentally aren’t absolutely completely applicable in all physical situations, as that is postulated in the SR.

Besides here to:

“…..There is only one true inertial frame at a time in any experiment, allowing there the isotropy of SOL nowhere else…”

- that is correct, in sense that is in SS post above. In real experiments mostly simply one – and completely obligatorily just “Lorentzian” frame is used and is sufficient, no any other frames are necessary, and so measured speed of light is isotropic, however that

“… The simultaneity is absolute, although the time measured by a moving clock is relative.…..”

- generally is a strange claim, though here is some interesting nuance. The “relativity of simultaneity” in relatively moving frames is fundamental fact that follows from fundamental Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle [so the quote is strange], but there exist some other and real in, say, both relatively moving frames “simultaneities”, and example is in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317067896_The_notion_speed_and_the_Lorentz_transformations, where Tangherlini transformations are commented; below is practically quotation of the paper text.

…Let there are two very bad boys, which were born exactly in one time moment at rest. Let running from a sheriff they occur in a spaceship that is at rest in the spaceship’s ends, but the sheriff arrived to the middle of the spaceship, and made simultaneous shots by lasers in the boys; both boys are shot simultaneously in the rest frame, and having at that simultaneously exactly equal ages.

If the boys hid in the spaceship ends and the sheriff found them when the spaceship moves with a large speed V already, then after that he shots simultaneously in the boys, real – i.e. in the rest frame - time intervals when the lasers’ flashes hit in the boys are. different, ∆t ahead” is evidently larger than ∆t“back” – while in the spaceship frame the lasers’ flashes hit in the boys simultaneously according to the ship’s clocks..

But really because of [see Lorentz reformations] the front boy in the ship is really younger than the back end boy, they will be shot, though non-simultaneously in the rest frame, but really “simultaneously”, i.e. having again exactly equal ages – as that is in the “at rest” frame/case. and so in accordance with the relativity principle in both frames both results are real and identical.

At that observer in the rest frame, if he don’t know how material objects move in the 4D sub-spacetime, will think that the front end boy was hit when was older then the back end boy, what isn’t true in the reality.

If a synchronization of clocks in a moving ship frame, when clocks in moving frame are set according to the simultaneous showings of clocks in the rest frame [Tangherlini synchronization], then

- the clocks in the ship will show, as clocks of the rest observer above, unreal age of the front boy at the light’s hit, so, according to the clocks, the boys have different ages; and this unreality [and so the inadequacy of the Tangherlini transformations] is evidently non-avoidable,

- while any synchronization can to set any clock’s showings, but cannot really make a human [here the front boy] be really older.

Though, returning to applicability of Lorentz transformations, again, it isn’t absolute, and an example when the transformations aren’t valid see the link above, section “Wutke rod”

Cheers

I. If Galileo's principle of relativity (all inertial systems are mechanically equivalent) does not apply, the total momentum is not conserved during elastic collisions (and Newton's 3rd axiom does not apply); see Huygens' derivation of that total momentum using Galileo's principle of relativity.

Thus, assume Galileo's principle of relativity holds.

II. Then, Newton's 1st axiom means that the world line of a free body is straight w.r.t. to all inertial reference frames.

III. The most general transformations, which are represented by differentiable equations and transfer straight lines onto straight lines, are the projective ones (Lie & Scheffers, 1893, p.\ 32, Satz (theorem) 2; see also Frank & Rothe, 1911, (38), their $p$ being our $v$). In 1+1d,

t' = \frac{a_{11}(v)\,t + a_{12}(v)\,x + a_{13}(v)}{a_{31}(v)\,t +a_{32}(v)\,x + a_{33}(v)} \\

x' = \frac{a_{21}(v)\,t + a_{22}(v)\,x + a_{23}(v)}{a_{31}(v)\,t +a_{32}(v)\,x + a_{33}(v)}

Eventually, the Lorentz transformation (without the numerical value of c) comes out.

IV. The properties of light should not be subject to assumptions but to appropriate experiments and theories.

Peter Enders ,

The conservation of total momentum in elastic scattering follows Galilei principle of relativity. The point is that it does not hold for inelastic ones.

they are not coordinate transformations though...since the quantities found by the transformations are not real in general unless in particular cases of invariance.

Stefano Quattrini:

"The conservation of total momentum in elastic scattering follows Galilei principle of relativity. The point is that it does not hold for inelastic ones."

Do you believe Newton's third axiom does not apply to the inelastic impact of 2 bodies?

Peter Enders ,

This is not a contradiction.

The thread question is scientifically commented in SS posts on page 2; further in the thread some arbitrary discussion appeared, nonetheless some post looks as should be commented; so to:

“…The conservation of total momentum in elastic scattering follows Galilei principle of relativity. The point is that it does not hold for inelastic ones.…”

- at any 3DXYZ space interactions, including inelastic ones, both - the total momentum and energy conservation laws of course work completely. Including in

“…very simple example of twin bodies A and B of mass M which collide in a *inelastic collision*. They collide in their center of mass COM, since the system of the two bodies is isolated right before and after the collision, the conservation of energy should hold… The two masses A and B colliding, stick together, meaning that after the collision nothing moves, there is a new body A+B stationary in the COM of the system. …”

- besides the energy conservation, the momentum conservation is evident: total momentum of the system was PA+PB=MAv – MBv =0, and after A and B stick together, m(A+B)V(A+B) =0.

Total kinetic energy before collision Ek=Mv2, after collision kinetic energy Ek(A+B)=0 , but that by no means violates the energy conservation law, while so that

“…But whatever it is, we know from classical mechanics that heat is energy which now is contained in the new body..in what form (Boltzmann explains it)? And what would happen also if the two bodies did not develop any form of heat for example? would THAT ENERGY be LOST?? …..”

- looks as physically rather strange claim. Besides “Boltzmann explanation” in matter many other energy re-distribution ways exist and happen, an example see SS post on page 39 in https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_origin_of_Lorentz_transforms/39

- where it is explained why and how “Radar- doubled “one side Doppler shift” effect happens at re-distribution of the mirror’s kinetic energy into some excitations in the mirror’s matter that is created by the radar antenna photons, and is radiated by the mirror as the two times Doppler shifted antenna photons.

Etc., besides a lot of other endothermic structural and phase transitions can happen, when the temperature of (A+B) can remain near temperature “A and B”, but in most cases (A+B) is banally well hotter than “Aand B”.

Correspondingly that

“…Classical mechanics P=mv fails, falsified by P=mv*gamma as it emerged from KAUFMANN experiments.The extension of the kinetic energy theorem with P=mv*gamma helps us to find such energy.…..”, etc.,

- again looks as rather strange claim. Nothing bad happens with classical mechanics, and nothing, besides more correct equation for energy and momentum of moving with large speeds bodies, while classic mechanics is quite well applicable in small speeds cases, changes at application of conservation laws in the large speed case.

Cheers

I strongly oppose any trials to interpret the SRTheory as a model in which the proper time ticks more slowly if compared to any other clock. This is TOTAL misunderstanding of SRT.

In the SRT description of motion of a set of point-objects (aka: particles) the proper time is such a functional determined for each of their world lines separately, like the Euclidean length is determined for sets of smooth curves:

the proper time elapsed between two event on the world line is independent of the system of coordinates used for expressing the world lines like length of a curve between two points of the line is independnet of coordinates used for writing their equations.

Any physicist using SRT can compare lengths of well determined segments only. In particlar for two world lines of even a common initial event, their proper duration cannot be compared unless the end-events of the compared segments are given.

Thank you Justo for your opinion on my last post. On the contrary, I consider the interpretation presented to be very important, because it allows to stop really unimportant disputes that appear from time to time with "proofs" of internal inconsistencies of STR, such as the alleged twin paradox. Moreover, having a sufficiently simple formula of DIFFERENT meanings of time and time coordinates makes the conditions of discussion on real problems of physics much more convenient, whenever their SRT model is considered. But of course I have to agree that for other theories the presented in my post opinion is certainly useless :-(

The Lorentz transformation maps the values of coordinates between inertial systems. The invariant line element squared is, say, s^2 = c^2 t^2 - r^2. The point is thus the interpretation of the 'proper time' s/c. Unfortunately, I cannot connect this question with the preceding postings.

Peter Enders

Here is the connection with the invarince of the Minkowski linear element under LT:

[JoaD, from #3p.3] "the proper time elapsed between two event on the world line is independent of the system of coordinates used for expressing the world lines"

In relation to the Tangherlini Transformation, I have the opinion that it is applicable to theories covering a much smaller scope than the two most widely accepted theories - classical mechanics and SRT.

The main difficulty for a researcher applying TT to real situations is the need to indicate an inertial reference frame in which the maximum speed of signal transmission is isotropic. Practically this means that if we want to describe the results in the preferred IRF by the inverse TT, then we need to have result of measurements of the anisotropy of the maximal signals transmission velocity (by MM type experiments?)

Tangherlini Transformations is a direct continuation of classical mechanics to high energy physics in which the equivalence of inertial frames implemented by GT represents just a first order approximation.

They are real time transformation like the GT, extending their scope of work with the gamma factor.

a) They rely on the two-way speed of light in moving frames, from which it follows straightforwardly the experimentally tested time dilation and length contraction

b) They have a degree of freedom more than LT, since they are not subject to the constraint of SOL = c in every inertial frame.

c) All the experiments so far performed in electrodynamics are well accounted by TT, by the way in a simpler way.

d) There is only one Inertial frame of reference for any physical problem, non-accelerated objects reference to it. It is much more compliant with the characteristics of a static gravitational field which according to MAX Abraham defines a aether frame.

SR is a tool of calculation, in certain situations very useful. It will not be disconfirmed by the existence of an "aether frame" or preferred frame since it is tested to work to a certain extent but already falsified by gravitation which relies on such a characteristic.

In SR Everything is calculated according to the assumption of the equivalence of these "abstract entities",.. LT are TRANSFORMS, according to LARMOR and LORENTZ they are Transforms, since they use "auxiliary variables" which are not in general measurable quantities unless Lorentz Invariant.

TT work well in accelerators since the term vx'/c2 is always negligible in such conditions, making TT transforms eventually the one used.

it is compliant with the existence of an aether frame meaning with what supported by : LARMOR, HEAVISIDE, MAXWELL, LORENTZ, ABRAHAM et al.

Justo Pastor Lambare

What is the problem with possible existence of a preferred frame?

The concept that this frame is associated with background microwave radiation is now popular. At least, not ignored by the mainstream.

The existence of such a frame can solve one technical problem - to determine the absolute speed of some spacecraft moving in deep space, far from the nearest stars.

A reply related to the last post by @Stefano Quattrini.

Same holds for LT

Its a quite fuzzy claim, which is equally valid if applied to LT.

>

This statement is doubly confusing. First, also LT ensures [that] two-way speed of light in [all] moving frames [equals the same value] , since it ensures a stronger condition that the same holds wrt one-way speed of light. Secondly, the mysterious 'straightwardly' implied time dilation and length contraction  'more straightwardly' follow from the stronger condition of the one-way speed of light equal the same value in all irf-s. 

>

That's evidently   not true. Namely, the TT is determined by the subluminal function v uniquely; no other parameters are exploited. 

c) All the experiments so far performed in electrodynamics are well accounted by TT, by the way in a simpler way.

Not true. For instance the of experimentaly confirmed Biot-Savard formula is precisely obtainable from application of LT to the Coulomb electrostatoc forces, which is FUNDAMENTALLY impossible in the theory based on TTs (reason: there is no algorithm adapting the TTs to tensor fields.

>

This is a reasonless trial  to involve the physical phenomenon of gravity to formulas ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT of the gravity forces.

Again totally off the sibject, neither the TT nor LT are supposed to be related to the gravity.

This paragraph uses again fuzzy statements and notions like using 'auxiluary variables' or 'to be in general measurable'.

Vladimir Onoochin: Dear Vladimir, you wrote,

"What is the problem with possible existence of a preferred frame?

The concept that this frame is associated with background microwave radiation is now popular. At least, not ignored by the mainstream.

The existence of such a frame can solve one technical problem - to determine the absolute speed of some spacecraft moving in deep space, far from the nearest stars."

My question: What about Galilean relativity? Can it be maintained, i.e., are all frames moving straight uniformly w.r.t. that preferred frame physically equivalent to it?

Thank you and cordial greetings, Peter

Dear Peter,

I am not familiar with the Galilean invariance. The physicists of XIX century were seeking the ether, some medium that transfers the EM fields. According to Maxwell the ether should transfer only the transverse components - the Coulomb potential should propagate instantaneously. I couldn't find any paper of those times where the speed of propagation of the Coulomb field is discussed.

So the physicists proposed two concepts of the ether - co-moving with the Earth and the stationary ether. Both theories described the experimental data (which the scientists had at that time) more or less perfectly. As I understand, both concepts of the ether (and the frame linked with it) do not admit the Galilean invariance.

After the MM experiments, only the concept of the stationary ether survived. To meet the experimentaly data, Fitzgerald and Lorentz suggested the hypothesis of the moving bodies contraction. According this hypothesis the classical electron has a shape of the perfect sphere only in the frame of stationary ether. So any Galilean invariance is forbidden.

In this model, if some observer co-moves with the contracted electron with respect to the stationary ether, this observer 'sees' the contracted particle (ellipsoid). It differes from the special relativity prediction - in the SR approach, co-moving electron must have the spherical shape.

Lorentz in his paper of 1910 gives niumerical estimate of this contraction. When the Solar system moves around the center of galaxy, the diameter of the Earth should reduce to 0.06 meters. It is too small to be detected.

If we were able to launch material bodies to the velocities of 0.1 of the speed of light and this body is supplied by some camera, the shot made by this camera would recognize what theory is true, of Lorentz or of Einstein. According to Lorentz, the camera would send us the photos of the contracted body.

But I suspect at such velocities, the body has to destroy - no one atomic structure can be stable if its sizes reduce up to 1% ((v/c)^2).

Unfortunately, there is no astronomical data that some massive body propagates with such speed. The cosmic rays are the flow of the elementary particles, even not molecules.

I hope I reply your question.

With the best wishes,

Vladimir

in reply to Joachim Domsta

Its a quite fuzzy claim, which is equally valid if applied to LT.>>

no because in LT everything is limited by SOL. It cannot be a real time theory..simultaneity is relative in LT, while simultaneity in TT is absolute..

>

This statement is doubly confusing. First, also LT ensures [that] two-way speed of light in [all] moving frames [equals the same value] , since it ensures a stronger condition that the same holds wrt one-way speed of light. Secondly, the mysterious 'straightwardly' implied time dilation and length contraction  'more straightwardly' follow from the stronger condition of the one-way speed of light equal the same value in all irf-s.>>

Lenght contraction follows from the two way SOL experimental evidence and cannot be reciprocal..

>

This is a reasonless trial  to involve the physical phenomenon of gravity to formulas ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT of the gravity forces.>>

formulas are independent on gravitational force but they must depend on the light propagation...

Again totally off the sibject, neither the TT nor LT are supposed to be related to the gravity.>>

Lorentz invariance becomes Local Lorentz Invariance which is falsified by gravitation in the small range. TT works fine in the earth centered inertial frame as the kinematical part of GR for example.

This paragraph uses again fuzzy statements and notions like using 'auxiluary variables' or 'to be in general measurable'.>>

go and read Lorentz and you will know what auxiliary variables are.

That's a meaningless reasoning since the mentioned relation to the  aether which is NOT described with even one single property.>>

Because you have never read anything about such authors.

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

Peter Enders ,

no inertial frame has any kind of existance, they are concepts. If we want to associate such concept to a concrete phenomeonon or object, CMBR looks more like a REST FRAME especially if we accept that it is the relic radiation of the origin of the universe. It must be infact overall stationary with that origin, hence should be the only ancient REST FRAME conceivable, at rest with the center of mass of the universe.

Dear Stefano Quattrini ,

Regarding your reference to:

Propagation speed of Coulomb force. What do experiments say?

I mean the investigations of the Coulomb field propagation in XIX century. Hertz's experiments showed that the speed of propagation of the E field is equal to c - but it is the transverse E field.

>

To determine the difference in Lorentz-FitzGerald and Einstein contraction, the effect should be detected in the frame co-moving with the electron. But we have the access to the only frame linked with the Earth.

>

The problem can be stated in different way: if the L-F contraction is real, all electronic processes in materials should go differently (slowly) and the electronic devices of the spaceship can don't operate.

But in the nearest future (100-200 years) is would be impossible to accelerate any massive body to v ~ 0.1 c.

1. It is trivia that

'1WSOL=c' implies '2WSOL=c'.

Hence the time delay or length contraction derived from '2WSOL=c' are also derived from '1WSOL=c'.

2. It is obvious that neither LT nor TT involve properties of gravity.

3. There is no doubt that any LT and any TT is determined by exactly one and the same parameter - namely the relative velocity of the image irf with respect to the original irf. Hence there is no more degrees of freedom when using TT in comparison to LT.

4. The approximation based on negligible value of x'v/c^2 does not distinguish between the qualities of calculations made according to LT or TT.

5. There is for TT no counterpart of the LT action on tensor fields, which is the basis of transformation of properties of the em fields in arbitrary reference frame. This makes TT a much more poor tool for calculations of em processes if uncompared with LT.

6. The preferred irf required by TT must be compared to the irf of the lab which makes usage of TT very complicated.

The above listed properties of LT and TT (and some other listed in post #2 p.4) discredit usefulness of the TT as a preferred tool for describing the reality unless experiments invalidate the SRTheory.

If you are sitting on a train and next to your window is another train such that you cannot see the ground. When your train and the other train begin to move against each other, can you say which train began to move, yours or the other?

Dear Vladimir Onoochin ,

"I mean the investigations of the Coulomb field propagation in XIX century."

sorry you are right

"Electrodynamic Measurements in Particular Attributing Mechanical Units to Measures of Current Intensity R. Kohlrausch and W. Weber"

SECTION 17

https://isidore.co/misc/Physics%20papers%20and%20books/Zotero/storage/ZPMHSUUZ/Weber%20and%20Kohlrauch%20-%201857%20-%20Electrodynamic%20Measurements%20in%20Particular%20Attribut.pdf

Never said that in the other case they cannot be derived but

with 1WSOL they are not the same at all. Although they can be predicted, in the case of 1WSOL LC must be symmetrical and TD does not involve a change of the pace of the clocks.

1 way SOL = c implies the EINSTEIN'S LIGHT CLOCK (which is a blunder) and the funny trajectory of light.

they are falsified by Gravitation in a very different way.

In LT case gravitation forces an LLI local Lorentz Invariance which works only in the infintesimal (ABRAHAM and LEVI CIVITA).

IN TT case gravitation defines the preferred frame or propagation domain of light which is not Local but extended like the ECIF or SCIF.

Dear Andrew Wutke ,

the key difference between TT and LT is well explained by Tangherlini in

https://web.archive.org/web/20180421143529id_/http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/papers/zj-2009-04.pdf

pages 53 and 54...

it is illustrated the resynchronization operated by LT which occurs at variance with TT. Basically the LT fake/force the inertial frame equivalence with the resynchronization term...

AGAIN FROM THE DISSERTATION:

"We arrive at the following remarkable and somewhat astonishing result: Unless one can synchronize separated clocks absolutely, it is impossible to determine the one-way velocity of an object, since velocity is defined non-locally and one has no way of determining the time of arrival in terms of the time of departure. "

"Einstein in formulating special relativity attempted to circumvent this difficulty in the following way: “We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required ”by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A”.

Do you think that Tangherlinig thought that light is compulsory in order to set clocks in sync?

sure, was it denied somewhere?

Tangherlini did not want to prove that SR was wrong.

What you are actually saying is a circular argument indeed.

TT assumes that SOL is isotropic in one propagation frame which is bounded by General Relativity, meaning for example the ECIF.

I. About the system of inertial reference frames exploiting TTs as the family of admitted method of describing evolution of physical events in different coordinates the following statements are i

mplied by properties presented by @Stefano Quattrini

I.1. the preferred inertial reference frame is defined as the one where the light moves with isotropic velocity

I.2. in every inertial reference frame which moves with respect to the preferred reference frame the light velocity is not isotropic

I.3. every lab is the preferred frame.

CONCLUSION:

I.4. ALL LABORATORIES' IRFs ARE AT REST EACH WITH RESPECT TO ANY OTHER.

O think that Einstein STR and Tangherlini's theory are both consistent views of reality but from a different view point and fundamentally do not contradict each other apart from some unfortunate popular narratives. To say which is superior depends on the task you want to accomplish. The UTC time is mo more correct than Australian time in Adelaide (1/2 hour behind Melbourne time). It depends on the purpose of clocks synchronisation.

If one wants to have invariance of lunch time all over the world to be close to noon one uses local zones times. If one wants to use time for global navigation, UTC is better for all pilots in the air.

Justo Pastor Lambare

I can affirm my position previously expressed in some other discussion that Tangherliini Transformation do not have anything to do with General or even special relativity as they can be derived from first principles underlying SR and GR I guess. This is very elementary but it was tedious to put it altogerther overcoming a few hurdles. You may even say that SR is correct because of TT consequences. Just tiny detail of fixing one way velovity of light by stipulation to achieve aesthetically pleasing invariance, and on the other hand do physics without necessity of the insantaneous signals that did not show up so far.

the sillogism of Joachim Domsta in regards to TT

and it is in general not absolute: ECIF, SCIF etc

every inertial frame which moves sufficiently close to ECIF such that it is not in SCIF or in wider gravitational fields

I.3. every lab is the preferred frame.>>

That is not true.

Andrew Wutke ,

It is enough that you read the first pages of Tangherlini dissertation to understand that TT are derived from GR and are engineered according to general covariance and do *not* comply with Lorentz invariance.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180421143529id_/http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/papers/zj-2009-04.pdf

I have made no assumptions about covariance. It may be implicit in the physical scenario and general properties of coordinates transformation.

not Lorentz Transformations. The term vx'/c2 which binds the speed of light to be absolute constant prevents that.

Tangherlini Transformations have no issues to be applied in the long range, they support GENERAL COVARIANCE, harmonized with GR.

REAL time dilation which is a consequence of energy conservation and their non reciprocal "length contraction" a consequence of conservation of momentum, are perfectly aligned with GR of time dilation and length contraction which are real and not reciprocal.

7. If two labs are in relative motion and each of their irfs is preferred then in both we have 《1wsol=c》. Thus the TT leads to a result contradicting this property unless each lab cannot exchange light beams from another lab, even they are saparated by glass only.

that in fact cannot occur at once. IF one frame in a physical problem is declared as preferred there is not other. This is binded by gravitational configurations for sure.

ECIF is an isotropic frame and as such can be used.

A lab on earth can be used approximately as a preferred frame.

Nature is one, if ther is no harmonization between electrodynamics with gravitation the theory is doomed to fail.

8. The SRT structure of space time perfectly founds the QFT and the theory of elementary particles. Without LT the whole experimentally confirmed theories cannot be exploited in applications. TT is totally useless for this aims. For those issues where TT is applicable it is just an approximation of LT. Thus indeed there is no reason to make TT a favorite for describing the nature.

even if they are symmetrical or differ by a position of 10^-15 g?

That's obviously quite far away from reasonable thinking.

A few lines of math AGAIN, thogh in a more complete formulation :

Every LT as well as every TT is UNIQUELY DETERMINED BY THE SAME PARAMETERS which characterise an Euclidean rotation of the space components and a boost by a vector of a subluminal velocity. PERIOD.

that is not true. TT require two matrixes transformations, while LT 3 matrixes... TT preserve one degree of freedom more and is a direct derivation from GR.

TT transformation are valid within isotropic frames like ECIF, SCIF etc. sufficiently close to Earth center in case of ECIF for example, on equipotential surfaces.

A wider scope than SR which is valid only locally.

JoaD: "Every LT as well as every TT is UNIQUELY DETERMINED BY THE SAME PARAMETERS which characterise an Euclidean rotation of the space components and a boost by a vector of a subluminal velocity. PERIOD."

Stefano Quattrini :

That's too week justification. Everybody knows that ANY matrix can be presented as a product of arbitrary many matrices.

SQ:

TT is is NOT derived from GR. But TT is derived from three conditions:

0. TT maps linearly the coordinates of the preferred irf into coordinates of another irf (obviously, with the same origin (0,0,0;0) ).

1. The matrix of any TT is of the following box structure

[3x3 matrix ; 3x1 matrix]

[0,0,0; 1/gamma]

where gamma = 1/sqrt{1-(v/c)^2)}, v is the velocity of the new irf wrt the preferred irf.

2. TT transforms the light cone into a bunch of vectors ensuring "2WSOL=c"

PS.Relating Tanrherlini transforms to gravity can be justified AT MOST QUALITATIVELY since there are no parameters of the gravity forces influencing this transformations.

If TT not derived from GR then why Tangherlini is solving Einstein Field equation. There must be some compelling reason.

Andrew Wutke You have referred to a statement that . I have never met the issue of seeking a solution of the Eistein Field equation in a form of a transform of reference frames. Could you please suggest some source of this way of interpreting the main problem of GR?

By chance, I have found the following reference:

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009APS..NWS.C1024R/abstract.

Nevertheless, the principle of sufficient reason and Galilean relativity enforce LT rather than TT. The principle of sufficient reason is definitely correct. Hence, is Galilean relativity (partially) incorrect? The authors seem to answer yes.

"In 1958, Frank Robert Tangherlini, the US physicist, suggested an original procedure of synchronizations of clocks at two distant inertial frames, which differs from Einstein's method (Tangherlini F.R., PhD thesis, Stanford Univ., 1958; Malykin G.B. Prog. Phys., 2009, v.1, L9, v.2, L14). Einstein's method uses light signals, while Tangherlini's method uses faster-than-light signals, e.g. phase light spots produced by a rotating laser (Malykin G.B. Phys. Usp., 2004, v.47(7), 739) or even super-light speed tachyons. As a result, Tangherlini has obtained the so-called Tangherlini transformations from one inertial frame to another, different from the Lorentz transformations. In particular, the Tangherlini transformations allow an anisotropy of the velocity of light observed in a moving inertial frame, and they give a proper explanations to all known interference experiments of Special Relativity. We emphasize the Tangherlini transformations due to the possibility of a weak anisotropy of the velocity of light as claimed by the Grenoble group (Navia C.E. et al., Prog. Phys., 2007, v.1, 53), and the anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background."

What do you mean?

Joachim Domsta

Here is the PhD dissertation from Stanford where Frank R Tangherliini brought to light his transformation. It was burried in Stnford University for many years before it became publicly known:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180421143529id_/http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/papers/zj-2009-04.pdf

@Andrew Wutke, thank you.

Joachim Domsta ,

Instead of spitting sentences as usual, please have a read to the document I referenced in post #4 at page 6.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180421143529id_/http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/papers/zj-2009-04.pdf

Tangherlini PHD Thesis

which has been also referenced now by Andrew

Hete is my reply to the posts #1&3 on p.8:

Q1. Which statements of the dissertation relate TT to non-zero gravity forces?

A1. NONE

Q2. What is the number of parameters defining a single TT on the (x,t)-plane?

A2. 1 (in words: ONE), namely the relative velocity v.

Q3. What is the number of parameters defining a single LT on the (x,t)-plane?

A3. 1 (in words: ONE), namely the velocity v.

Thank you Justo for the remarks, which I will follow. The aim I tried once more to continue is to cover the very unjustified impression made by my Esteemed Opponent on my allegedly wrong understanding physics. Unfortunately, that's impossible due to His very strong desires to be a finder of sever errors in SRT without usage of advanced mathematics.

Joachim Domsta ,

infact most probably the Tangherlini covariance supports it...at variance with LT.

An available degree of freedom is not only made by parameters but also by constrains my dear!!!!!

THE FIRST MATRIX O1 Implements the GT (only v)

THE SECOND O1*O2 implements TT (v and gamma)

THE THIRD O1*O2*O3 implements LT (v and gamma and again v)

LT , as you can see, involves a further constraint on v/c than Tangherlini.

Try your own judgement don't trust experts unless you have the reason to agree.

This is how experts recognise contribution to physics.

Julius von Meyer faced skepticism and ridicule from some contemporaries when he proposed his version of the law of conservation of energy in the mid-19th century. One notable critic was the physicist Hermann von Helmholtz, who later contributed significantly to the formulation of the conservation of energy principle.

Meyer initially struggled to gain acceptance for his ideas, particularly because the scientific community was still grappling with the implications of energy conservation

Anyone learned about Julius von Meyer at school?

Some experts failed to recognise Boltzmann for his kinetic theiry if gases so the man got into depression and killed himself.

YES,

* the number F of degrees of freedom of choosing the value of an expression EQUALS

* the number P of parameters

MINUS

* the number N of equations binding some of the parameters.

In the case of 1+1 TT formula we have P=1, N=0, thus F=1-0=1.

IMPORTANT REMARK 0. A CONSTRAIN ON VALUES OF PARAMETERS IS A SEPARATE EQUATION OFF THE FORMULA DEFINING THE EXPRESSION UNDER CONSIDERATIONS.

IMPORTANT REMARK 1. F IS INDEPENDENT OF THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS IN WHICH THE PARAMETERS APPEAR IN THE FORMULA.

SUMMARY: CALCULATING THE NUMBER OF FREEDOM OF AN EXPRESSION ONE SHOULD RECOGNISE THAT

SUCH A FORMULA DEFINES A FUNCTION DEPENDENT OF THE PARAMETERS (HERE ONLY v ). IT IS NOT A CONSTRAIN!!!!!

JoaD: "Q1. Which statements of the dissertation relate TT to non-zero gravity forces?

A1. NONE"

SQ:

Not even probably but for sure my answer is correct, despite that the quote from SQ's post cannot obtain any reasonable meaning [ e.g. what is the most probable meaning of the "TT covariance"?]

Andrew Wutke ,

the narrative of Wikipedia is a bit faulty sometimes...

Helmoltz to some astonishment, wrote his treaty on conservation of energy in 1847 while in the army as a medic (he was born in 1821 hence he was 26).

He was not at all yet recognized as a Physicist that time he was a well estimated medic working mostly as an optalmologist...

it is more credible instead that Joule who dedicated himself to Physics since he was young was already known and he might have opposed.

it is true though that I've never heard about Julius von Meyer.

Probably Von Helmoltz took the with his increadible treaty on conservation of energy which included conclusions about what he deduced by studying the human body.

a detail was forgotten infact.. to apply the transformations one need to synchronize clocks in a real problem otherwise these numbers will never have a chance to match especially in presence of the term vx/c2. Einstein synchronization is needed which is a further constraint.

On the other side the synchornization of the clocks in TT is automatic, either at infinte speed or with the local absolute frame

@Stefano Quattrini: >

That's a very special form of apology by Stefano. This forgotten 'detail' was a severe unjustified multiply repeated critique of my proper statements. What hurts is that the critique was [and is in other issues] based on totally WRONG reasoning in a form of paternal advice, as if they were prepared by a specialist.

In order to avoid another tens of posts untill He dares to accepts another claims about the TT from my posts (e.g. that TTs have nothing to do with gravity forces), I ask all interested in the subject for undestanding reasons that I will neglect ANY critique of my posts by @Stefano Quattrini.

I was briefly reading about Eagle's case from other publication. Was not quite there as a relativity denier. But did not check myself.

TT were also "discovered" by Mansouri Sexl around 1976 from incorrectly written Lorenz transformation however they credited Tangherlini in bibliography note. The error exposed by Rybicki 39 years later. No one noticed the error even though they were frequently quoted. What experts were doing for 39 years?

Experts are time invariant.

When Galileo discovered the moons of Jupiter using his telescope, many people refused to believe his findings and some declined to look through the telescope.

One of the most famous figures who refused to look through Galileo's telescope was Cesare Cremonini, a professor of Aristotelian philosophy at the University of Padua - a staunch supporter of the geocentric model and refused to believe Galileo's observations, even when offered the chance to see

Experts are time invariant.

When Galileo discovered the moons of Jupiter using his telescope, many people refused to believe his findings and some declined to look through the telescope.

One of the most famous figures who refused to look through Galileo's telescope was Cesare Cremonini, a professor of Aristotelian philosophy at the University of Padua - a staunch supporter of the geocentric model and refused to believe Galileo's observations, even when offered the chance to see

In fact, geniuses may also error. For instance, because the Green function of d'Alembert's (correctly: Euler's) wave does not obey the Chapman-Kolmogoroff equation, Feynman concluded that Huygens' principle is obeyed within Schrödinger's wave mechanics but only approximately within optics.

Instead of criticising a journal it is better to look at Mansouri Sexl paper to see what they call Lorentz Transformation. Probably Rybicki would not get published going against celebrated experts. But this is only my guess.

Yes. Pointless for me to discuss TT without a new input. Hopefully soon.

Sometimes orthodox scientific establishments are like medieval church.

Recent story:

Nobel prize recent winer Katalin Karikó's unfair treatment primarily stemmed from the scientific community's skepticism and misunderstanding of her research on mRNA. Her work was initially met with resistance and funding challenges because many scientists believed that mRNA could trigger an immune response that would be harmful to the body.

Funding difficulties: Karikó struggled to secure funding for her research, as many institutions and funding agencies were hesitant to support a project that was considered risky and unconventional.

Criticism and skepticism: Her work was often met with criticism and skepticism from her peers, who questioned the feasibility and potential benefits of her research.

Career setbacks: As a result of the challenges she faced, Karikó experienced several career setbacks, including being demoted and having her salary reduced.

Despite these obstacles, Karikó remained committed to her research and eventually made significant breakthroughs that paved the way for the development of mRNA-based vaccines. Her story is a powerful reminder of the importance of perseverance and resilience in the face of adversity.

Gemmini

Andrew Wutke ,

in any case TT have all the right predictions and do not support "the bizarre" ones belonging to SR-LT:

a) Twin clocks show different counting when rejoined after separation but the "clock-rates" are the same (according to SR all clocks have the same "rate") it is only the trajectory in SpaceTime to make the difference. Shows that LT is just a tool of calculation in this case.

In TT all clocks moving in the isotropic frame, change their clock-rate in reason of their kinetic-energy per unit of rest energy (ECIF, GPS).

b) LT implements light clocks in which light trajectory gets tilted in the moving system, if observed from the stationary system. In TT, light goes straight in an isotropic frame like ECIF. In a lab on the surface of earth it is approximately isotropic. Any moving system in the preferred frame will "see it tilted".

c) Sagnac effect is explained straightforwardly with TT without resorting to unnecessary synchronization procedures.

If A and B were set in sync from a central synchronization procedure or from the isotropic frame, if they test their synchronization by exchanging light they discover that the return time is not H/c but H/c-vH/c2 or H/c+vH/c2

LT interprets that as time keepers having an offset so they are "desynchronized".

TT interpretation is simple: light increased or decreased its retardation in connecting A and B, since it did not cover the same distance H but a bit more H+ H*v/c or a bit less H-H*v/c. Nothing to do with a "desynchronization" (as the one occurring in the twin effect) , it is just an apparent effect due to the use of light signal in non-isotropic frames to establish simultaneity (moving frame is not isotropic if there is a frame where it is isotropic like ECIF).

d) Such offset, correctly predicted at the first order as vH/c2 (used as the Sagnac correction in GPS), is predicted by LT as +-gamma*vH/c2 , symmetrical...

From calculation involving Sagnac effect, the offset must be instead

+/-sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]*vH/c2 .

If the interferometer on the GYRO goes close to the speed of light, light must take a much longer time than H/c to reach it, unlike the other way in which light should take much less time than H/c, hence the situation is totally ASYMMETRIC. That is not the case for +-gamma*vH/c2 which is the symmetrical predicted by SR.

e) the other bizarre consequence of offset of equally accelerated clocks a consequence of Relativity of simultaneity, does not occur according to TT.

Using light beams it is detected an offset, same as Sagnac offset, but it is just as an apparent desynchronization because the rocket departed from an isotropic frame and it moves now in a non-isotropic one.

f) Lenght contraction is symmetrical for SR, although to allow the out and back speed of light as c in a moving frame it is necessary that length contration beside being REAL must be also NON-SYMMETRICAL.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Tangherlini_Transformations_are_less_limited_than_Lorentz_Why_arent_they_used_instead/8

As much as I like TT they are hard to use. No practical synchronisation found yet. They really only work between the absolute frame and an inertial system. The velocity of inertial system in the absolute system is not the same magnitude and opposite sign in the inertial system.

as long as you identify an isotropic frame they work very well.

In a lab just use the clocks in the lab which can be your preferred fraem.

Nobody says that you must work with ECIF when you are on the surface of earth which is almost perfectly isotropic.

In a lab they work to a very good extent to the extent that your experiment is so accurate to be able to spot a Sagnac effect.

To avoid that you should put your lab oriented north south, and do experiment with speed in that direction..

There is no absolute system, unless you work in the CMBR directly but in such case it is difficult and would be useless.

They work with any "local absolute frame" in which isotropy is well approximated.

@Andrew Wutke

Yes, here is a detailed evidence:

In the primed coordinates given by TT

as follows:

x'=γ(x-vt) . . . . t'=t/γ

the world line of the origin of the preferred frame

. . . . {x(t) = 0 for all t}

obtains the form of

. . . {x'=γ(0-vt) = - γ^2 v t', for all t'},

which is NOT of the form

. . . . . {-vt'for all t'}

unless v=0.