My theory? Neo-Lorentzian theory is my theory like my shoes are my shoes. I like my shoes, I wear my shoes, and I prefer my shoes to your shoes. But I didn't make my shoes. If you don't like my shoes, don't complain to me, complain to the folks who made them.
You don't like the Neo-Lorentzian theory? Fine. I don't "need" you to like it in order for me to be happy with the very little bit that I know about it and the even less that I can tell you about it. You dispute the Neo-Lorentzian theory? Cool. I'll give you Joseph Levy's email address and encourage you to go fuss with him. But until I find out that Joseph has raised his white flag, surrendered his position, and renounced his theory, I'm going to prefer his theory over STR.
Until Joseph renounces his theory, I see two theories which contradict each at important points: one I prefer, the other I don't.
If you think (which I don't believe you do) that both theories, i.e. Neo-Lorentzian and STR, are the same theory with two different names, I'd think you're mistaken, but I'm not going to try force anybody to believe that the two theories are different.
You haven't shown me anything that persuades me that Neo-Lorentzian theory is wrong. From what I can tell, you've just told me that you don't agree with how I describe the theory and the conclusion that I draw from it: that there's a privileged/preferred frame and absolute simultaneity and that it describes a length contraction that is really "real" just not STR "real". Give it up; I ain't buying it.
Well, if you just do the algebra I mentioned above, you would see that the 'paradox' disappears. it really is just the Lorentz Transformation.
Good Lord! Forget the silly Paradox of the Light Spheres. I'm sorry I even mentioned it, although I think I mentioned it because one of you two asked me what it was about STR that I didn't like. I know that my biases in favor of privileged/preferred reference frames, absolute simultaneity, and absolute motion lead me to believe that STR is nonsense. I know that relativists believe in relative simultaneity and all the things necessary and because they do, there are no paradoxes in relativity, except maybe the continued use of the term "Paradox' to refer to non-Paradoxes.
Actually, no. The point is that if you consistently use the LT, you get that the angle of reflection is NOT the same as the angle of incidence, which negates your scenario.
So, are you telling me that my scenario is wrong because (a) it doesn't show what STR says it should show or (b) because it doesn't show what Neo-Lorentzian theory says it should show? If (a), thanks, but I knew that before I posted the scenario. If (b), then I'll have to let Joseph know that he doesn't know what his own theory predicts.
Which suggests that you didn't do something right, eh?
Well, Gee whiz. What could Joseph have been thinking when he told me:
Well, I would suggest learning a bit more math and *then* seeing what your theory says. I think you will find it doesn't work out the way you expect it to.
Actually, I think it would satisfy you quicker if you read Joseph's book
From Galileo to Lorentz ... and beyond, and then you could tell me and Joseph what it is about his theory that neither he nor I understand. I'll send you a link to it when you're ready.