Strange

The photon has energy. That energy is equivalent to the mass difference (as described by that equation).

Any evidence for this claim? (And, no, a made-up graph doesn't count as evidence.)

A nice example of apophasis.

Unfortunately, he is notoriously reluctant to explain what he means; claiming it should be obvious, or resorting to cryptic analogies or quotations. (And, next step: insults and/or putting people who ask for more detail on ignore.)

Not really. If you are looking for a theory that fits certain criteria (preconceptions?) then you will have to see how well each measure up to that. I'm not sure anyone else can do tat for you. (Note that this does not seem a good way to approach science, through.)

This is one of the best examples of length contraction. The results can only be explained in terms of flattened disks colliding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#Experimental_verifications

Apart from all those already mentioned?

But he said before that 0 is not a value. He then talked about "the value of X" which implies (to me) that X cannot be zero.

That just moves the problem to defining what is meant by "thing" so this flimsy definition doesn't really help.

No. But you can if you interact with them. For example, if making a measurement means shining a light on it, or something. "Observation" in this context doesn't just mean looking.

But apparently X can't be zero? (rhetorical question as I am on ignore)

Excellent point. How can one say that only the present exists when every observer may have a different definition of "the present".

Exactly. Length contraction is equivalent to the different rate at which a cook ticks seen from a different frame of reference. Both of these will disappear when the two frames of reference are brought back together. Ageing is equivalent to distance travelled. This will remain different even after the frames are brought back together.

This sounds more like philosophy than science. However, in GR the past, present and future are all equally real. So you need to provide some evidence for your claim if it is going to be treated scientifically. Also, maybe you need to define what you mean by "exist".

I suppose if "value" means "not zero" then it is trivially true. But pointless (of no value, one might say).

So it is different for each observer. So I'm not sure why you say "not really". And this stunning insight into the meaning of "now" is useful, how?

Citation needed. As GR is based on the concept of space-time this seems like a false claim. What is the "absolute universe" and what evidence do you have that there is such a thing? As who witnesses it? It is different for each observer. Is that what you mean?

No, no, no. It was Merriam Webster. Everyone knows that.

The evidence for general relativity appears to show you are wrong.

Blah3

Actually, the OP politely thanked people for their inputs. It is scherzando (damned autocorrect) who is being juvenile. As in all the threads he joins.

And the evidence for this is ... ? This is obviously not true, for various reasons. (I should really save this response as the same idiotic suggestion comes up fairly regularly.) Neutral bodies experience gravitational force. Gravitational force is proportional to mass, not charge. Gravitation is only attractive; electromagnetism is both attractive and repulsive. Electromagnetic force is proportional to charge, not mass. We can block electromagnetism but we can't block gravity. blah blah blah

How should I know where a random PDF file comes from? That is why I asked.

[math]r_s[/math] [latex]r_s[/latex] [tex]r_s[/tex]

Now, I'm not sure what the question was either!