Mordred

Well I did leave the option open that I wasn't sure. Its a type I don't recognize. Oh wait doh I see what he's doing. Lol not sure how I missed it. I looked at the determinents of |M|. [latex] A_1b_2-A_2b_1 [/latex] and trying to figure out how he got to N

Just random adults. Tim I really wish you would learn BOTH presentism and eternalism is "block". Though eternalism adapted to growing block. By someone else I assume other than myself lol Please define Lorentzian presentism. With your arguments. I've already shown that it is a contradiction. I don't think that is an unfair request. I would like to understand what you think presentism and eternalism means precisely. Maybe your referring to Neo-Lorentzian ie Ether absolute space and absolute time. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.4748&ved=0ahUKEwjd6YnE19XPAhUKr1QKHfmzD8kQFgghMAE&usg=AFQjCNEuCgGDxQ81uKGVEV8GuWiy3_mzxw&sig2=raL5EM_Yi8mx58A2UvgKwA Here is a related arxiv coverage. Put succintly presentism vs eternalism can be argued just by Lorentz itself. Neo-Lorentz vs Lorentz(SR). Two different views the previous is specific to the Ether. Maybe a math equation relating an absolute frame that keeps c constant might help. U = velocity, I=absolute. [latex]\acute{c}=(c^2-v^2sin^2\theta)^{\frac{1}{2}}+vcos\theta[/latex] this two consequences, a primary anistropy in the due to motion relative to I and a gravitational potential retardation. [latex]F=\frac{_GMm}{r^2} \frac{(1-u^2/c^2)}{[1-(u^2/c^2sin^2\theta}]^{3/2}[/latex] I can't recall who came up with these formulas, I think it was G.Builder but not positive. It was in my notes from the late 80's, back when I was first trying to prove relativity wrong days. Actual target was prove expansion wrong in regards to the observable universe being larger than the Hubble horizon. I used this equation as a replacement to GR in my goal to explain expansion strictly by classical thermodynamics. (never did succeed, though I got close. I was able to prove my own model wrong) PS my collection of notes, textbooks, pdf's is huge. The pdf's alone is well over 30 gigabytes. I never could get the above equations to work with Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics. In terms of EoS.

Those matrix definitions depends on the associations. For example a cummutative matrix is [latex] a*b= b*a [/latex]. Only the sign changes in this type. When you multiply a matrix the resultant matrix must have the same number of columns as the previous had rows. In matrix multiplication the commutative property is important. Key rule when you multiply two matrix, they are not cummutave. (Ab) does not equal (ba). Rule two is association given 3 matrixes (ab)c=a(bc) however as its not commutative (ab)c does not equal (ac)b. Rule 3) matrix multiplication is distributed across addition. A (b+c)=(ab+ac) So I'm not really what you have done in the above. From what I can tell the second matrix isn't valid. However I could be wrong, but I don't think so

Sounded like a good lecture you went to. I can certainly see the correlation. I have never met anyone who has intuitively understood the 4d aspects of relativity. Whether its due to our brain process, or simply being used to Galilean/Newtonian dynamics in our everyday lives. In either case it is a difficult hurdle for many. A few years ago a student of mine (when I work as an assistant instructor) decided to perform a little experiment. (exact numbers I can't recall) Anyways he ran a survey, on opinions of relativity. (more or less to get an idea what % understood the PoR time dilation) Out of 5000 people less than 5 % understood the variable time aspects. The typical response went something like "How can spacetime be curved, space isn't made out of rubber or any other mysterious substance. So how can time dilation be correct. Scientists must be wrong if they think that." The % is what surprised me, I expected the typical responses. I would have figured after a 100 years that % would have been higher. However it did yield an interesting result. Some of the analogies we use to help explain relativity, can actually hinder people's opinion on relativity.

lol its probably a good thing we didn't get into "evolving block" probalistic observers.

ah gotcha, Nothing I really had to worry about for the programming I do. I'm more PLC based languages. So can't really help

speed up the divide operations with bit shifts. In binary multiplcation/division by two is faster using bit shift left/right operations. Remember you have the tools of binary and hexadecimal math.

Average it as a bundle of worldlines for the car. World tube If I'm not mistaken is applicable. Note even a pointlike particle will undergo rapidity if it accelerates. Of course we could ignore the car dimensions altogether and just use the centre which reduces the problem to one worldline. However that worldline still changes under rapidity. The worldline calcs that includes rapidity is the Lorentz+rapidity equations. Those calcs assume a pointlike event. Where as the car is a collection of events. I think perhaps you may be under a misconception of what rapidity entails in terms of events. An event is simply any pointlike coordinate of an pointlike object. Any additional coordinates used to define that object such as your car is a collection of coordinates. (a collection of events. Each with their own worldline.) Within the volume of said car it is a field of events. Which can be modelled as an internal vector field. This seems to be common problem. People first approaching relativity are too attached to materialistic views. I'd like to believe your beyond that, but I'm not positive you are. For example "Is a particle solid ? or does it just display bullet like characteristics? as well as its wavelength.

Yes higher up is better. No radio waves are still affected by refraction. Repetitive sampling can isolate refraction errors.

no I don't reject the Lorentz transformations itself. As far as the What is space thread. The volume of space, with all standard model particles removed including virtual particle production is just volume. I reject any ether aspect that many posters feel is there. First off an absolute frame adds no time dynamic or influence for time under the Lorentz transforms. Secondly no particle ever discovered can match the criteria for an ether. A completely empty space devoid of all SM particles, Real, virtual or quasi. Is simply the volume (Granted a 4d volume). If you include no fields present as well. After all particles are excitations of a field. Granted the zero point energy of QM tells us that due to the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. There is always a field present. Under this principle as the virtual particle pairs are virtual photons. A photon field. The Lorentz ether specifies a matter field, not a force field such as that arising from virtual photons. Think back to the Pauli exclusion principle. Matter takes up space, (volume) this is fermionic particles. Lorentz specified a matter field. (fermionic) QM states a force field is always present via the uncertainty principle. a force field (bosonic) Excellent. Tim for myself spacetime is nothing more than a set of coordinates until you embed a particle field to those coordinates. There is no time particle, space particle or spacetime particle. Hence no medium until you add standard model fields/particles. I'm really not sure if your trying to find some medium like aspect to the spacetime coordinates or not. Can the spacetime coordinates itself influence how we view a freefall particle. Yes but due to geometric relations. One example being shown in the equivalence principle and tidal force. Two terms to study. Affine connection and Levi-Civita_connection to fully understand the last bit.

Thats funny I don't see a model. A model requires math. Where is your model? How can you make predictions without math?

Ok I see I have my work cut out for me on this thread. I'm going to time save it though. First start with a uniform distribution of particles. I don't care if those particles is matter or radiation. However for the record relativistic radiation drops out of thermal equilibrium first. Secondly the sequence particles drop out of thermal equilibrium is determined by their TOTAL MASS. Both rest mass and inertial mass. The gas laws are part of the FLRW metric. Each particle has an equation of state that corresponds its density to pressure relations. Just like in thermodynamics. For mathematical treatment to the gas laws. treat as an adiabatic and isotropic fluid. Stars and Galaxies are mere dust on cosmological scales. Start there with the math Strange has been requesting. EoS here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) I can tell you. I can not only explain the CMB. I can calculate the number density of every common particle within that background. Just by the temperature. For that use The Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics.

under velocity change both change in speed or direction. I certainly tried to lol. Rotation speed isn't quite correct though, rapidity boosts is modeled via group rotation in much the same manner Lorentz boosts are modeled as rotations. You really have to spend considerable time studying the two to get a good picture. The best way is to reduce to the composition of velocities. Going through the step by steps to group aspects is too lengthy to cover here. +1 on last post

Groan you do that under the 4 velocity section..... look at the statement about constant length. When you have rapidity=(velocity change) the length of the measuring rod has changed. See the section under acceleration and four vectors. OK visual aid time. Draw a line between two events. that line ds^2 is your shortest path at a specified (constant) velocity. An acceleration is a change in velocity. (plain and simple). Your path is no longer the same. ds^2 is your worldline of simultaneous events for a specified velocity. When you change velocity your worldline is a different path altogether. Your Lorentz tranforms has a specific ds^2 line element. With your car scenario you have a Lorentz boost. However that Lorentz boost does not include rapidity... To have rapidity you need to use the Lorentz+rapidity equations. See under the following link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#boost Here is the physical implications of rapidity. The last equation I posted is a simple correlation following the steps above. The original post those equations was on that you never linked here specified that those equations are in Lewis Ryder's Relativity book.

I gave you an exact prediction example that you failed to include in this post. [latex]F_a=F_b=\frac{mMG}{r^2}[/latex] let x be the distance between a and b, let [latex]\alpha[/latex] represent the angle between one test body and the center line (center of gravity vertical axis) so from frame a, b experiences a force directed toward a. [latex]F=2F_asin\alpha=2F_a*\frac{x}{2r}=\frac{mMG}{r^3}x[/latex] a then observes b to be accelerating towards him by [latex]F=-md^2x/dt^2[/latex] [latex]\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=\frac{MG}{r^3}x[/latex] the 1/r^3 is characteristic of tidal forces. That clears up the principle of equivalence a bit.... the key importance is to understand when this relation holds true. the next part will take me a bit to type in... the twin paradox which isn't a paradox at all, essentially can be broken down to the following statement. "we should never have considered the age of a and b to be the same, as the frame of b undergoes accelerations that a does not undergo." so lets look at the acceleration first define the four velocity. [latex]u^\mu[/latex] [latex]u^\mu=\frac{dx^\mu}{dt}=(c\frac{dt}{d\tau},\frac{dx}{d\tau},\frac{dy}{d\tau},\frac{dz}{d\tau})[/latex] this gives in the SR limit [latex]\eta u^\mu u^\nu=u^\mu u_\mu=-c^2[/latex] the four velocity has constant length. [latex]d/d\tau(u^\mu u_\mu)=0=2\dot{u}^\mu u_\mu[/latex] the acceleration four vector [latex]a^\mu=\dot{u}^\mu[/latex] [latex]\eta_{\mu\nu}a^\mu u^\nu=a^\mu u_\mu=0[/latex] so the acceleration and velocity four vectors are [latex]c \frac{dt}{d\tau}=u^0[/latex] [latex]\frac{dx^1}{d\tau}=u^1[/latex] [latex]\frac{du^0}{d\tau}=a^0[/latex] [latex]\frac{du^1}{d\tau}=a^1[/latex] both vectors has vanishing 2 and 3 components. using the equations above [latex]-(u^0)^2+(u^1)2=-c^2 ,,-u^0a^0+u^1a^1=0[/latex] in addition [latex]a^\mu a_\mu=-(a^0)^2=(a^1)^2=g^2[/latex] Recognize the pythagoras theory element here? the last equation defines constant acceleration g. with solutions [latex]a^0=\frac{g}{c}u^1,a^1=\frac{g}{c}u^0[/latex] from which [latex]\frac{da^0}{d\tau}=\frac{g}{c}\frac{du^1}{d\tau}=\frac{g}{c}a^1=\frac{g^2}{c^2}u^0[/latex] hence [latex]\frac{d^2 u^0}{d\tau^2}=\frac{g^2}{c^2}u^0[/latex] similarly [latex]\frac{d^2 u^1}{d\tau^2}=\frac{g^2}{c^2}u^1[/latex] so the solution to the last equation is [latex]u^1=Ae^{(gr/c)}=Be^{(gr/c)}[/latex] hence [latex]\frac{du^1}{d\tau}=\frac{g^2}{c^2}(Ae^{(gr/c)}-Be^{gr/c)})[/latex] with boundary conditions [latex]t=0,\tau=0,u^1=0,\frac{du^1}{d\tau}=a^1=g [/latex] we find A=_B=c/2 and [latex]u^1=c sinh(g\tau/c)[/latex] so [latex]a^0=c\frac{dt}{d\tau}=c cosh(g\tau/c)[/latex] hence [latex]u^0=c\frac{dt}{d\tau}=c cosh(g\tau/c)[/latex] and finally [latex]x=\frac{c^2}{g}cosh(g\tau /c)[/latex], [latex] ct=\frac{c^2}{g}sinh(g\tau /c)[/latex] the space and time coordinates then fall onto the Hyperbola during rotation [latex]x^2-c^2\tau^2=\frac{c^4}{g^2}[/latex] what did you think the last equation is? though commonly g is replaced with [latex]\propto^2[/latex] You can run the series of infinitesimals from these equations to plot your curved path. I'm certainly not going to waste my time doing it for you.... [latex]x^2-c^2\tau^2=\frac{c^4}{\propto^2}[/latex] as m_i=m_g principle of equivalence a change in velocity induces a rapidity rotation. Doesn't matter if its directional or the scalar component of the vector. at another time I even posted you the action principle which correlates to this in terms of action. Specifically supplying and explaining the Principle of least action.

I stay on topic as well. the Philosophy is a comparison between mathematical models. Its pointless to discuss the philosophy unless you understand those models and the math behind them.

I don't have any absolute 4d spacetime variation. That concept is a contradiction on its own. I only compared the difference between Galilean Relativity and SR. Nothing more. That was the whole point in my argument above. 4d absolute space is a contradiction. That was precisely my entire point in my presentism argument. Several times I specifically stated. there is no 4d "absolute spacetime" mathematically that is the equivalent to Galilean relativity. Which we all know is wrong. After all these posts YOU STILL don't understand the difference?????? I even gave you velocity addition examples grrr Bingo all 3d objects exist at a moment in time. You have two possible treatments of time. absolute or variable. Every object has a time coordinate. However under "absolute time" you do not require a 4th axis of time to model such. You do require a 4th axis to model variable time. For the record I really couldn't care if my view on Presentism is correct or not. I personally find little purpose in block style arguments. UNLESS it is backed up with the correct math being described by the block argument. The only math Presentism describes from what I can discern is Galiliean relativity (under the subject matter). While eternalism mathematically represents Minkowskii. So instead of declaring my view of presentism is wrong. I suggest you describe to me where it is wrong. Instead of merely posting "its wrong". Where is your counter argument to my view of presentism that is wrong? That is the purpose of philosophical debate. I present an argument. You present a counter argument. Merely stating someone is wrong, isn't an argument without adding why you feel its wrong. Tim you obviously didn't understand a single thing I've said or you have misinterpreted everything I have stated. So instead of relying on words I'll post the math behind my statements Galilean Transformation (frame Independence) time is absolute. What I interpret "presentism describes". Show how I am wrong on this. Don't just state it. Transformation equations [latex] x=vt, y=\acute{y}, z=\acute{y}, t=\acute{t}[/latex] note Of course it has a time dimension but it is absolute. Time does NOT ALTER ANY FRAME. classical velocity transformation Assign U to the velocity components in S and primed S. [latex]\acute{U_1}=,U_1-v, \acute{U_2}=U_2, \acute{U_3}=U_3[/latex] Notice we have no velocity component for time....not required [latex](U_1,U_2,U_3)=(\frac{dx}{dt}, \frac{dy}{dt}, \frac{dz}{dt}) (\acute{U_1}, \acute{U_2},\acute{U_1})=(\acute{\frac{dx}{dt}}, \acute{U_2}=\acute{\frac{dx}{dt}}, \acute{U_3}=\acute{\frac{dx}{dt}})[/latex] So if you have a ship moving 0.6 and the plane fires a bullet at 0.6 c under the last set of transformations the final speed of the bullet is 1.2 c. Which we know is wrong.....yet this is 3+1 dimensions However time is absolute in this case. You could call it an absolute 4D model but its pointless to do so, time doesn't add any new dimension to any velocity calculations. So all 3 velocity components are modeled under 3D. It is a 3D model. Lorentz transformations (I have no idea how you think I believe the 3d spatial components are not valid...Obviously something you fail to understand in my posts) [latex]\acute{x}=\gamma{x}=x-vt, \acute{y}=y, \acute{z}=z, \acute{t},\acute{t}=\gamma(t-\frac{vx}{c^2})[/latex] 4d velocity model. This is frame dependent. Here time does indeed add new dynamics to the velocity components. Recall my statement about preserving the [latex]\eta_{\mu\nu}[/latex] Euclidean space under Minkowkii ? under 3d velocity models that preservation is automatic. time-symmetry =isotropy of time so the reverse is true with no new dynamic added due to time components so. [latex](t=\gamma(\acute{t}-\frac{vx}{c^2})=(\acute{t}=\gamma(t-\frac{vx}{c^2})[/latex] Use the same substitutions as above except use the Lorentz transforms with regards to Lorentz ether. As the Lorentz ether does not add any new velocity component to these velocity transforms IT IS NOT NEEDED. under velocity transforms the above bullet travels at 0.88 c is my stance clear enough yet? Absolute space=frame independent 3d, relative space=frame dependent. 4d

Its amazing you constantly ignore what I am describing to you. The last post directly affects your 1 to 4. What is it about the statement. "when you have rapidity, your no longer on the same worldline" didn't you understand? If your on a different worldline you have a different set of simultaneous events. So "Does a change in direction result in a loss of synchronization" ? Absolutely 100% YES. Care to prove me wrong. That is described in any standard textbook.

I hate to say this but I can't find a single accurate physics statement in that post? This makes providing a direction of guidance tricky Perhaps a few good articles will help. Lets start under common misconceptions. Please read them in particular the Balloon analogy. Expansion is homogeneous and isotropic, no preferred location (centre) no preferred direction. Ie not flowing outward. Which the dynamics you described above conflicts with. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions) http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf:"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966 "why the prejudice against a constant" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano

What Strange is detailing is the difference between a global metric ie universe, compared to local influence due to gravity GR. On the global metric, expansion is due to thermodynamic conditions. These thermodynamics are our standard model of particles interactions. We use temperature, pressure, density in the deceleration equations of the FLRW metric. Every particle has an equation of state, which correlates a particles pressure influence due to its kinetic energy. Now if you take a homogeneous fluid (no preferred location) then there is no gradient in pressure, this means you have no inherent outward flow. Even better as our expansion is isotropic ( no preferred direction). One can argue if expansion is due to pressure or temperature but the equations use density. (critical density formula) Now gravity does influence expansion but not in an intuitive way. As more matter collapses into large scale structures (local), the average density on the global scale decreases. So the global gravity average decreases. Expansion occurs. So why doesn't expansion affect the local structures? This is because locally gravity is too strong for the global expansion to affect. The average mass density is roughly 10^-27 kg/m^3. This equates to a mere 7.2 *10-10 joules/m^3. Pretty weak, far less than a Newton of force. When Local gravity exceeds the critical density, no expansion occurs.

If spacetime isn't separable, then quite frankly every object can be described under 4d. Under GR it is. We describe the object under the same 4d coordinates. All frames are equally valid. So we cannot say the object in a past frame isn't as valid as present frame. Lets try this for example. I am at elevation roughly 780 ft above sea level. I have no idea where you are but I bet your time dilated relative to my frame. Are you less real than me? Is my measurements of a glass sitting on my table any more accurate than your measurements of the same glass? Your in my past, I'm in yours lol. Which one of us is the true present? How do you distinguish a true frame from any other frame ? Lets go even further, if I assume my eyes is my present, every other part of my body is my past. I can't measure any object that isn't in the past. all information exchange is also limited to c. Under this understanding it makes sense to include a coordinate time doesn't it? What about length,? well we have proper length. "length measured in my rest frame" How do we track the different lengths for different frames? Use 4d coordinates. So yes every object is a 4d object in SR/GR. 3 spatial components + 1 time component. So if it takes time for light to reach my eyes, or any signal to reach me to measure an object. How do I determine simultaneous events between frames.? see the OP post quoted section. the list is there for Einstein synchronization. Fundamentally between frames, find the halfway point. Send a signal in both directions to a mirror at each event. If the signal arrives back at the origin at the same time, those two events are simultaneous. Now use this procedure inside a plane flying east. Send a signal from the center of the plane, to both the front and back of the plane. The back of the plane will receive the signals before the front of the plane. Simultaneity itself is relative

I already pointed out the errors in 1 to 4. Assumption. You are assuming No rapidity. Twin Paradox event one observes event 2, neither A or B can tell which observer is inertial. (Einstein synchronized). So returning twin should be the same age as at home twin. If you assume no Rapidity. Case one Scalar only We can actually solve this without math.... event a watches event b. Yells hey wait a minute. Event B is slowing down/speeding up. ( No longer on the same Worldline). Second case. Physical direction change=change in rapidity. Observer A yells "Hey wait a minute he is turning". more complexely shown the worldline ds^2 path also changed. The ds^2 worldline is your synchronized events. When you add rapidity in both cases the Worldline path for synchronized events change. You are no longer on the same spacetime geodesics when you accelerate. Your spacetime diagram assumes constant velocity. Those diagrams set the ds^2 line elements accordingly. Once you have rapidity that same spacetime diagram is no longer valid. Katra. acceleration causes rapidity. Which changes the worldline to a different worldline.

Spinning off threads everytime you have difficulty with my statements isn't going to help. Fact is these details ARE INPORTANT. and should never be ignored when examining between models Whether or not its a Philosophical argument or under math treatment. The philosophy should reflect the math and vice versa...

Quite frankly the "Under constant velocity term" should be enough to realize the Einstein synchronization procedure is no longer valid under "rapidity". Under rapidity different points on the car itself are undergoing spatial rotation. This changes the time interval due to rotation. Try and distinquish between "time" and "time interval". Minkowskii uses "Intervals" In time interval under Lorentz you have two synchronization equations "outgoing Lorentz" incoming "Lorentz" due to isotropy of time the synchronization transforms are inverse to each other.( Both assume constant velocity). Under rapidity its a 180 degree change that does not detail all the rapidity points between incoming and outgoing. So on spacetime diagrams you have a region not accounted for. Assuming your strictly using the Lorentz transformation base formulas. The problem with your above is you aren't accounting for "DURING ROTATION" to get from inbound to outbound. In order to maintain synchronization during rotation you must run the transforms with x following a hyperbolic curve. If you were to assign different observer points on the car. A front, B back C centre. The only point that will be valid under rotation to Einstein Synchronization (base) is point C.( the transformations account for x plus and x minus ONLY) *assuming centre of rotation. However both A and B are in different Spatial directions simultaneously. Now even if you just use event C. the above only accounts for vectors at 90 degrees and 180 degrees. Not for all the angles in between. Remember SR uses VECTORS. Your vectors undergo rotation in which is the spatial component's are affected. As the spatial components are affected your "TIME INTERVAL" is affected. I have one question. The above is detailed in any SR textbook. If your getting answers that says these books are wrong....? Rapidity "Mathematically, rapidity can be defined as the hyperbolic angle that differentiates two frames of reference in relative motion, each frame being associated with distance and time coordinates. Proper acceleration and rapidity. " (the acceleration 'felt' by the object being accelerated) is the rate of change of rapidity with respect to proper time" under each section look at the transforms on Gamma and Beta components. For example acceleration. [latex]\beta\gamma=sinhW [/latex] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity

"Presentism certainly does not regard the "now" as more "real" than other times; at least, there is no reason for it, and a 3D Absolute Space concept isn't related to such ideas." Yes it does. The past is already fixed. The future does not exist. Only the present changes. Ok So your in the present. Who's present? Which observer is truly in the present? This would be no problem under absolute time. Looking over various presentism papers, one of the most common expressions when describing presentism vs eternalism is "Presentism is incompatible with SR". Of course I have yet to find a block article WITH math to actually prove that. transforms under absolute time. Each IF frame coordinates (x,y,z) time is absolute within this frame. Between frames time is still absolute. Frame S and [latex]\acute{S}[/latex] are identical and only change during the present S. Past events are already fixed and do not change. Transforms under absolute time between frames. [latex]t=\acute{t},x=vt,y=\acute{y},z=\acute{z}[/latex] This is Galilean relativity. Eternalism answer all observers are in an equally valid present. Time isn't absolute. S does not equal [latex]\acute {S}[/latex] Within each IF S, time is still absolute but only within the IF frames. However between frames Time is NOT absolute. Transforms are Lorentz transformation [latex]t=\gamma\acute{t}, x=\gamma\acute{x}, y=\acute{y}, z=\acute{z}[/latex] Not sure why you can't see the difference. I kept hinting velocity addition can tell the difference. As between each of the above transformations if you take a Ship and fire a rocket. Both moving at 0.6c the final speed of the rocket will be different. Under Galilean final speed of rocket is 1.2 c. Under Lorentz it is less than c. Which view is correct? A) Galilean Relativity rocket final speed 1.2 c B) Lorentz Relativity final rocket speed 0.88 c