I have the following argument.
If we made a model space ship about a 12th of the circumference of a Sagnac fibre loop, placed it where loop starts/ends as if the photons are coming out each end of the model space ship.
Now we set the fibre loop and spaceship rotating at near the speed of light, such that in one direction the photon leaves the rear of the spaceship almost immediately, but the photon in the direction of rotation takes a few loops before the photon leaves the ship!
Now let’s do the same with a spaceship, but rather than have it move in a circle, it will move in a straight line (inertial frame) passing but making 90 degree turns to form a galaxy sized square.
And we will have a light channel though the center of the ship.
Now the photons are emitted from the center of the spaceship as it is moving very very near C.
Now the same thing must occur, the photon moving in the direction of travel will take a couple of times around the Galaxy before it leaves our spaceship, but the other one will clearly leave in the first moments of the first leg of travel!
But this means that one photon must leave the ship before we even turn a corner, where the other must still be in the ship based on how we know everything works!
But it is a perfectly inertial frame, which demands that both photons leave at the same instant before the first turn!
SR makes to separate predictions based on what we are going to do next!
I guess the photon reads our pilots mind and decides how it should move?
The problem is that this dilemma must exist, if you argue that the photon leaves the ship just as swiftly, then we can easily show the 2 photons will pass (if the exited one is kept on track) in different places in the rotating and stationary frames, but SR does not make this prediction because the Sagnac effect was established about the same time as SR was getting to it’s feet.
Further problems exist, if the spaceship passengers observe the rate of time in the center of the galaxy, because they are in pure inertial frames for almost the entire trip they will see the rate of time in the center of the galaxy slowed the whole time and they would be sure that there clocks would be more advanced, but according to the rest of the galaxy it is the spaceship that has experienced slow time.
Again SR has placed it’s cards on the table and said the spaceship will be in the wrong.
But it is important to note that since they are in an inertial frame most of the time (if we decide inertial frames exist in reality which they don’t) they MUST see time in the galaxy almost entirely as lots of time passes for them.
This leaves us with one option, the space ship crew when they stop, or maybe each time they turn a corner must see the time rate in the rest of the galaxy speed to an insane degree to not only advance to the amount of time they have experienced, but to go ahead of them!
But that can’t happen because they would see that light is now greatly exceeding C.
Look, you aren’t too stupid to see the solution.
The only solution is that Special Relativity is inherently flawed.
It not only has experiments that contradict it and is not the best explanation for the evidence, all that is beside the fact that it is not possible.
It is a social phenomena, hero worship, defending dearly held beliefs, clever people holding the theory together with brilliant but flawed arguments.
Ultimately deceiving themselves.
It is a religion.
It has not had the degree of criticism it should have had, it was accepted too lightly and then defended from a position of authority.
I can’t tell you why a theory that proposed the literally impossible was so readily accepted, but it was and here we are, are we going to get real?
Give up the facade of an established physics that tells you it has it all together, when it is held together by intentional blindness?
I am intelligent, but it is not my intelligence that has allowed me to prove this theory wrong. I am not putting myself up on a pedestal.
It is simply that I am willing to do something that you all think I am crazy to do, to disrespect the work of those who went before.
And that is precisely the reason I get so much flack, that I dare challenge the God of physics, Einstein, and all the high priests.
And here in lie the greatest clue to how this has gone on for so long, challenging the status quo is not encouraged, it is something you must be insane to do, a crank, or worse (as I have been accused, here, by a therapist!).
The very reaction that I get when challenging the official line is precisely why it is not challenged, and why it stands uncorrected.
And because it is not challenged is precisely why it deserves no respect.
