Perfectly innocent wrote:
'If the unanimous belief of professionally trained relativists like Dr Tom
Roberts is correct, then the assumed non-existence of an absolute time order
on SxR, (S^2)xR and (S^3)xR isn't provable, it isn't math or physics; it's
just semantics. If that is true, then we could just as easily replace
non-order with order. What do you all think of my proposal of adopting the
new axiom?'

Tom is being very careful about what he says on your theory. We know
experimentally is that here on earth frames with the approximate properties
of an inertial reference frame exists. Also we know that when gravity is
present all objects fall at constant acceleration which is good evidence
that locally inertial reference frames exist. Your theory is locally
equivalent to SR but globally it is not. Your transformations break the
symmetry properties of an intertial reference frame by not being linear.
Your circular or cylindrical universe or whatever is not a reasonable
generalization of the properties of inertial reference frames as found on
earth. We find that Euclidian geometry is valid to a high degree of
accuracy. The natural generalization for an inertial reference frame is to
propose it is valid; not that space is circular. In fact it breaks the
definition of an inertial reference frame as given by Rindler in his book
Introduction to Special Relativity. Why not hyperbolic or some other
construct? As for your thought experiment on light beams in your universe
has anyone ever detected a light beam returning; just what evidence do you
have for it is beyond me.

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

Looks to me like a case of http://www.google.com/search?&q=blown+fuse

Thank heaven the knowledgeable people on this site are taking this person to
task.

Thanks
Bill