This World even observed by un-aided eyes provides much interesting things and surprise to human mind. The N.A.S.A. and other Observatories world over are reporting interesting findings almost everyday.
We human beings speculate and unfortunately speculations of some are presented as Absolute Truth. We must be able to discern Facts from Speculation. The red shift is a fact observed but expanding universe is a speculation. Subsequently, what is holding the galaxies together resulted in further speculation of Dark Matter.
Ptolemy system was able to explain changes in position of stars and planets on assumption of stationary Earth.
Copernican system established supremacy of Modern Science over Church- holding Medieval views, by showing that Earth is moving round the Sun.
The Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment came as a blow- it is as if Earth be stationary. It shook the very foundation of Modern Science.
The Paradox of The Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment compelled Physics of Early 20th Century to accept the logic of Special theory of Relativity. This opened the Pandora’s box of all wild speculations, experimental manipulations and erratic interpretations.
The NULL result of Michelson-Morley Experiment is a fact while Special theory of Relativity is just a human speculation to explain it.
The Logic of STR is fallacious in its Derivations and in its Assumptions.
Logic of Special Theory of Relativity
Let there be just two frames of References.
1. Moving frame, moving with relativistic velocity V. Suppose it is a carriage with a lamp at floor and a mirror on ceiling, just above and in line with lamp at floor.
The height of carriage be H. The velocity of light be C
2. Other frame that is stationary with respect to Moving frame.
Now, a beam of light travels straight from lamp at floor, strikes the mirror at ceiling and returns to floor in the moving carriage.
. This is an Event in moving frame
The path of beam of Light is H distance up and H distance down. And total time will be 2H/C in moving carriage.
The STR derives from this that time for this Event in moving carriage will be 2H/C and in other frame stationary with respect to moving frame, it will be2H/C*þ1+V2/C2
According to S.T.R., this difference in Time is real and people were led to believe that one Twin in a space ship moving on with relativistic velocity will remain younger than the other on Earth.
Fallacy of Derivations
The Time in moving frame as shown in above formula of STR does not depend on its Velocity V but it depends on height of carriage. The speed of Light C itself is constant. Hence if we go on increasing or decreasing the velocity of Moving frame V, then its Time will not decrease or increase as per above formula unless it be shown that height of carriage will decrease or increase.
The Time in other frame will increase or decrease with increase or decrease velocity of Moving frame V as shown by formula of STR..
This may be accepted if there be only just these two frames in Cosmos.
There are infinite numbers of Moving frames with different velocities and thus it is impossible to base Time in one frame on velocity of other frame or frames.
Fallacy of Assumptions
The assumption that path of light in moving frame will be straight is itself fallacious as shown here by some refinements in our Imaginary Experiment.
Here the roof of carriage is transparent. Our lamp is capable of emitting single Photon or any micro-particle and we are able to detect it by one Observer at the place of mirror and by one Observer in outer space in helicopter in line with lamp and inner observer.
Initially all the three-lamp, inner observer and outer observer are in a line.
As soon as single photon is emitted, it goes straight up towards roof and in the meantime, our inner observer (in place of mirror) is shifted to a distance H*V/C thus single photon will not strike the inner observer (mirror), it will cross the transparent roof almost un-deflected and will be detected by outside observer.
Thus straight beam of light will not strike the mirror in carriage moving with relativistic velocity, only oblique beam of light will strike the mirror in carriage moving with relativistic velocity and this time will be2H/C*þ1+V2/C2 and not 2H/C for such beams.
We must not assume that micro-particles or beam of light and X-rays get deflected by movement of frame to the same extent as macro-particles, bullet or ball, get deflected.
If beam of Light start getting affected by velocity of moving frame as macro-particles are affected then
1. speed of moving bodies will be added to speed of Light
2. We will not be able to see objects moving away from us as all the beams of Light will get deflected away from us.
Absolute Space/ Extra-Cosmic Space
We can understand the things though we may not be able to know or be able to prove. Thus we can understand SpaceTimeInfinitum. We mean Universe or Cosmos the whole composed of galaxies, stars and other objects. We understand that there may or may not be Universe or Cosmos but SpaceTimeInfinitum is Essential.
The Modern Physics starts itself from a Singularity at the Origin followed by Expanding Universe and no Space and Time beyond this Universe. This all is deliberate negation of what is obvious.
In its march of wild speculations, the existence of absolute space was denied. It is now assumed that Space is secondary to expanding matter.
The word expansion means to occupy more space and thus there must be already some space.
Let us take unit of matter as ‘particle’ and unit of space as ‘point’. Let there be one particle and one point to begin with. If both be expanding together then there be only one thing in cosmos. For two particles to co-exist there must be at least three points. Thus we need more space for variety of things to co-exist. We need Space beyond Matter.
There are other possibilities to prove Essentiality of ‘absolute space ‘ or extra-cosmic space. If this Cosmos start shrinking and then again expanding and this doing again and again? Is it not possible for Cosmic ball to rotate or to move to-and-fro or to fall in one direction? Or if there be more than one Cosmic ball? All this we can understand in context of Absolute Space/ Extra-cosmic space.
In the Cosmos, there are two sets of Particles-
1. Macro-particles: These are affected by Gravity of nearby massive objects and by velocity of moving frame.
2. Micro-particles: These are not affected much by Gravity of nearby massive objects and by velocity of moving frame.
Thus Micro-particles and beams of Light and X-rays move straight in Absolute Space or Extra-cosmic space . Thus it is possible to detect displacement of moving bodies in context of Absolute Space/ Extra-cosmic space through some equipment, such as Michelson-Morley Interferometer. We must find shift of fringes if the body is getting displaced in Absolute Space / Extra-cosmic space. If we find no shift, NULL result ,then that body is not getting displaced in Absolute Space/ Extra-cosmic space.
When Michelson-Morley Experiment was performed in early 20th Century on surface of Earth and it gave NULL result then Special Theory of Relativity came in the rescue of Copernican System-the Citadel of Modern Science. And this followed by all wild speculations and erroneous interpretations of distant and not-sure observations.
Motion of Earth
Diurnal Motion: day and Night are Observations
Foucault Pendulum and Falling of heavy Stone to somewhat East when dropped from a height are Experiments performed.
Annual Motion: Changes in position of Stars and change in direction of
Starlight are Observations.
No Experiment on Earth could detect Earth's Displacement due to this Annual Motion.
We have Observational Proofs of Earth moving with respect to Sun and
stars but we don't get any Experimental Proof.
The NULL result of Michelson-Morley experiment is the testimony.
This Paradox was explained by Relativity and since then Absolute Space & Time became Taboo.
Alternative Cosmic Model
But there is a geo-specific solution to this paradox, not thought 100
years ago.
We hold a Special Clock with a single needle moving per Second. This
needle moves with respect to numbers on dial (as if Stars) and also
moves with respect to its center of attachment (as if Sun)
Now we will move the whole clock anti-clockwise so that needle always
remains aligned to some object (Ceiling Fan).
Thus this needle moves with respect to numbers on dial and its center but remains undisplaced with respect to ceiling fan.
If there be a mini - observatory and a mini-laboratory then we will
record observational proof of displacement with respect to number on dials and center
but we will record NULL result in all experiments because needle
remains undisplaced with respect to Ceiling Fan .
Here we can take the Clock as representing Cosmos . The Ceiling Fan represents a fixed point in Absolute Space/ Extra-cosmic Space.
Thus we can detect whether any moving body is getting displaced with respect to points of Extra-cosmic space or not. The NULL result of Michelson-Morley Experiment signifies non-displacement of moving frame with respect to points in Extra-cosmic space.
The displacement due to Diurnal motion of Earth on its axis is experimentally detectable as by Foucault pendulum but displacement due to Annual motion, approx.30 Km/Sec, with respect to Sun and stars is experimentally not detected so far. The Displacement
due to this motion is effectively countered by simultaneous reverse
motion at different Gravitational levels -Sun, Galaxy, Local Group and
Higher level. Thus Earth remains un-displaced despite its motion with respect to
Sun and Stars because of simultaneous motion of Sun, Galaxy, Local Group
and some relevant portion or whole of Cosmos
This explains plenty of Observational proofs of Earth’s motion with respect to Sun and Stars but no experiment can detect its displacement because Earth remains where it is despite its motion and therefore we have NULL result of Michelson-Morley Experiment when performed on surface of Earth.
Question is whether this Paradox of Experimental NULL result is a
GENERAL PHENOMENON or a GEO-SPECIFIC PHENOMENON.
Thus Michelson-Morley Experiments when performed on other Cosmic Bodies will settle the issue.
Proposal to N.A.S.A. for performing Michelson-Morley Experiment in Space or on other Cosmic bodies whenever feasible.

Will Michelson-Morley performed on the ISS satisfy your concern here?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

ISS stands for? I mean test to be performed on some other cosmic body to confirm that it is a General Phenomenon of Nature.

Obviously this is not a general result. If we hold a digital clock, there is no such effect. This is like saying if we remove the battery from our clock and it stops, then time stops.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

What, specifically, do you predict will be the results of an MMX done anywhere other than on the surface of the Earth?

To what extent has your idea already been tested, every day, in particle accelerators, and through the detection of cosmic rays?

What are the implications of your idea for General Relativity?

If it is a Geo-specific finding (due to simultaneous reverse motion at higher gravitational levels) then we will not find the NULL result .
If it is General Phenomenon of Nature as now believed then we will get NULL result everywhere.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

In this case, what would we find? I mean, how large would the 'not-NULL' result be? What directionality would it have? What period?

How far away from the Earth would you have to go to get this 'non-NULL' result? What sort of result would you expect to find if the MMX were done on the surface of the Moon? Mars?You also didn't answer the other questions I asked, about your idea.

Let me ask again, in a slightly different way.

It seems to me that your idea is inconsistent with Special Relativity - is it?

If it is, then to what extent do you expect, in your idea, the phenomena of time dilation, transverse doppler effect, relativistic mass increase, and 'reference frame specific' determinations of simultaneity?

We must come at the cross-road of Pre-relativity.When Michelson-Morley Experiment was devised , whole world of Physics expected NULL result on Earth because Earth is getting displaced in one direction.The NULL result came as a Surprise. First, Ether was rejected.Then Lorentz Contraction was developed to equalize distances in two directions. The STR just made this contraction experimentally unverifiable through chain of speculations.
The Michelson-Morley Experiment on Moon , if gives NULL result, then STR is correct.
If it gives not-NULL result then there is Absolute Space and Earth remains undisplaced in this Absolute Space despite its orbital motion (as shown in my model of Clock).

It seems that you're fairly new here, manesiro.

This ATM section of BAUT has some special rules, just for posts here; you may read these in the Rules For Posting To This Board, under 13. Alternative Concepts.

You will see that there is a requirement for those who post ATM ideas to answer direct, pertinent questions about the ideas they have posted, in a timely manner.

I have asked you several such questions, but you have not yet answered them.

Of course, you may need some time to answer; that's OK (just say so). Or you may not have developed your idea to the point where you can answer; that's OK too (just say so). Or you may not understand the questions; that's OK too (just ask for clarification). Or you may feel that the questions are not relevant, because (for example) they misrepresent your idea; that's OK too (just say so).

However, you are required to answer these questions.

Would you like me to repeat my questions, or re-phrase them?

Dear Sir,
Your questions are within four-walls of Physics under Relativity. I want to re-start from very beginning. I already outlined in my first post. My main concern is whether there is Absolute Space ( detectable) or not. If there is no detectable Absolute Space and if STR is correct( it is correct within those four-walls for all those within it) then we must find NULL result of Michelson Morley experiment on Moon.
If fringes shift there in two directions then I believe that NULL result on Earth is mere co-incidence explainable by my model of Clock and there is Absolute Space. Every body getting displaced in Absolute Space will give not-NULL result.
The History of Science and STR is from Ptolemy to Copernicus, then paradox of Michelson Morley experiment. Lorentz contraction and STR. All further refinements and sophistications are within the well of STR.
Thus I advocate repeatation of Michelson Morley experiment on Moon.

To what extent does your idea require a geocentric universe?

I ask this because many variations on the MMX have been performed, all with NULL results.

Among these are tests for an 'Absolute Space' through which the Earth moves, either as it revolves around the centre of mass of the Earth-Moon system, or around the barycentre (the centre of mass of the solar system, which is close to, but not the same as, the centre of the Sun).

More generally, motion of the solar system around the centre of the Milky Way galaxy has been detected, though I doubt whether any MMX (or variant) experiment would have been sensitive enough to detect such motion.

It shouldn't take more than an hour or so, with Google, to find many of these experiments; I'm curious to understand how the results of these are consistent with your 'Absolute Space' idea.

More generally still, can you show that your 'model of Clock' produces results that are consistent with experimental results on time dilation?

There are motions of Earth, of Solar System, of Milky Way....of Local Group and thus higher & hifgher gravitational level....not observed so far. But all these are observations of relative displacement. My submission is that MM interferometer may prove to be an equipment to detect actual displacement. The NULL result of MM experiment on Earth may be mere co-incidence because of peculiar arrangements in local cosmos. This all will be verified only when this experiment be performed on Moon. If it turns out to be NULL then I am wrong and there is no detectable Absolute Space.
If there is Absolute Space, we will find not-NULL result on Moon . Then NULL result on Earth is mere co-incidence due to peculiar arrangement explainable by my model of Clock.
What are experimental reults on time dilation? Such observations may be explained by some other speculation or by STR. The findings of Eddington are now questionable.The STR is a grand theory. Ptolemy System was also grand one.Why MM experiment was repeated so many times? When it was devised it was expected that fringes will shift because of Earth's displacement in one direction. Now within hundred years, under modern teaching , expectation of not-NULL result has become queer. Only future experiment on Moon will decide.

I don't know if I'm off base replying here, but:

Time dialation effects have been observed in certain short lived particles created in accelerators. The particles, after having been created, are moving at a good fraction of the speed of light. And, as such, from our reference frame appear to decay slower than quantum theory predicts. This might have been a problem, except, they decay at a rate that is explained by their velocity, exactly matching SR...

Hope that counts as a contribution.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Let's try this: the cost of doing an MMX on the Moon would be stupendous, at least US$100 million I would guess.

There are a zillion competing ideas on how to spend US$100 million, on doing good science.

The manesiro idea* has no math, no quantitative predictions (just that such an experiment might yield a non-NULL result, whatever that is); nothing has been offered to show that the thousands (millions?) of experimental results that show consistency with SR have been misinterpreted; nothing to replace SR (in the sense of successfully predicting the same results for those experiments which tested SR); and so on.

Now, please remind me again why it's worth so much money to do such a test?

*As far as I know, it hasn't even been published anywhere yet, so no one - other than manesiro - even knows what it is!

Whenever it will be possible to do any experiment on Moon then MMX may also be done without extra cost.I presented my idea in 74th session of Indian Science Congress Association in 1987. I got abstract published. You are cordial and sympathetic in hearing me.
First it is the Logical Fallacy in STR -please see in my first post. If anybody could have imagined that NULL result may be Geo-specific and explained by little modification in Copernican System 100 years ago then it had been simple for everyone to agree.STR explains many things and people accepted it despite all its logical Fallacies and also manipulations by Eddington and many following him.
Now people believe that STR has more than enough evidences in its favour. There has been decay in Scientific Spirit- instead of submitting to TRUTH people are becoming submissive to THEORY. Large number of researchers are just fishing evidences in favour of STR & GTR.
N.A.S.A. is publicating simulation of two Black Holes colliding. Without knowing Black Holes and without knowing that they can collide as if it is a two-dimensional sky.As in Middle Ages, philosophers used to argue how many Angels can dance on point of a needle.
The evidences collected are not as these are presented. Perhaps by experiment of Time dilation , you mean difference in life of mu-meson in lab and its finding where not expected because of distance.First, it is not experiment because in real sense experiment is observing under human control conditions under human manipulation. In this case, it is only two findings and not on two different frame of reference. If we observe it on lab on Earth and also observe it within a lab coming to us with relativistic velocity then we can prove Time dilation.There may be many explanations for what is presented as evidence.

There are thousands of experiments on SR and GR.

AFAIK, GR and SR can account for all such experimental results, to the level of accuracy of the experiments.

Other than the MMX, done on the Moon, what experiments could be done (in principle) that would show the inconsistency between SR (and GR) and the way the univserse works?I really don't understand what has been written here.

In the case of time dilation observations and experiments: the source particles can be 'under human manipulation' (e.g. in an accelerator) or not (e.g. in cosmic rays).

It is irrelevant how the particles are created; the results of the experiments and observations match the predictions (of SR, in this case) to the degree of precision of the observations and experiments.

What more can you ask of a scientific theory? That the predictions are independent of who is making them? That the obserations and experiments are independently reproducible? Well, the theory is not secret, anyone can do the calculations, the experiments, the observations. And many people have, and the results are always the same - the theory matches the results.

Of course, anyone is free to come up with a better theory - one that matches the experimental and observational results better, or has a larger domain of applicability.

If you think you have such a better theory, you are welcome to put such a theory 'on the table' (e.g. by publishing it, in Nature, say, or another peer-reviewed journal), for everyone to take a look at, to critique, and so on.

In the meantime, is there anything to discuss (from a scientific perspective)?

There must be supremacy of Logic. Something Illogical and able to explain and consistent with Observations and Experiments must not reign over Logic. I want to discuss Logic of STR. My paper has been returned by Nature and Science.I have that model already written.Is this website not equivalent to peer-review?
If Michelson-Morley Experiment be performed on other Cosmic bodies and we find NULL result everywhere then we can say that every moving body behaves as a Closed Universe and Distances remain unaltered in it , in direction of motion and in direction transverse to it. What is the physical cause of this Elasticity will have to be thought of.
Then Michelson-Morley Intersferometer will prove to be an equipment that always gives NULL result.
Special Theory of Relativity does not stop here. It says that Time will dilate in moving bodies and this will be directly proportional to velocity. There is no logical reason to assert this. This assertion can be verified experimentally by putting equal mass of radio-active material in two or more space ship and these be sent on motion with different velocities and after sufficient time the remaining radioactivity be determined- more mass remaining on faster moving be detected. The air, water and land of equator of Earth is rotating faster than those on poles from considerable period of time. Are we able to demonstrate difference in radioactivity more on equator than on poles if it were supposed that initially both were having equal amount? Thus Time Dilation increases as a gradient from Pole to Equator-does it produces any effect on radio-active decay and in life, growth and ageing of animals, plants, microbes from Pole to Equator.
Though again Observational findings have other explanations.The findings pertaining to STR and GTR fall in grey-zone and can be tailored.
It is the Logic that must be discussed. Please explain to me Logic of STR.

I remember going around and around about this on the old old OLD BABB with a geocentrist with a posting style very like manesiro.

If it is him, you'll be better off discussing this with a brick wall.

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

They give whole college COURSES on STR. I suggest you take one if you want to understand the logic behind it. What takes many weeks to teach is hard to explain in a few posts on a forum.

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

Absolutely not!

Try some other journals. There are many good professionals still trying to get their first articles in those two journals.There are plenty of logical reasons, but you have to be open to the logic.The effects of a less gravity field near the equator, as we understand from general relativity, offsets the special relativity effects. Objects at equal potential will tend to experience the same effects. The sea-level-surface of the earth is more or less an equipotential surface.

If this is your starting position, then it may be that BAUT is the wrong forum for you.

We do have a General Science section, where we could go over your ideas concerning logic (or "Logic"), theories, observation, and experiments. It may be that your ideas are so fundamentally antithetical to modern science that we are unable to discuss them, even in that section.

However, in the absence of a resolution to such a discussion, we will need to limit our discussion here, in this thread, to the ATM ideas that you have put forward.There are a great many practical and theoretical challenges to the ideas that you have posted here.

For example, the Earth's surface is most certainly NOT an inertial frame, so we cannot expect that any application of SR will produce results that make sense ... in terms of SR (you need the full GR to do that).

A second example is that the time dilation expected from the velocity differences between poles and equator of the Earth are trivial, compared to those we can observe with particles (such as muons) that move close to c. And, as hhEb09'1 has pointed out, pole and equator positions on Earth differ in a great many ways (disentangling all the confounding effects is not an exercise for the faint of heart, I suspect).

A third example is that, contrary to what you assert, time dilation in SR is NOT "directly proportional to velocity".In this case, you have chosen to post your ideas, here in BAUT's ATM section.

If you feel that observations of time dilation, in the decays of muons from cosmic rays and from particle accelerators, "have other explanations" (than those from a direct application of SR), then please provide them. Please be sure to show - quantitatively - that these alternative explanations match the observed results at least as well as the SR explanations.If you wish to understand more about SR, then please start a thread in either BAUT's Q&A or General Science sections (or, as has already been suggested) take a course in it, or get a good textbook.

This ATM section of BAUT is all about providing those with ATM ideas the opportunity to present them, in the full expectation that those ideas will be challenged and attacked by other BAUT members. The rules which guide ATM discussions can be found in BAUT's Rules For Posting To This Board (look at #13)

You will notice that those rules require BAUT members who present an ATM idea to answer (direct, pertinent) questions about those ideas, in a timely manner (of course, answers such as "I need a week to develop a reply" and "I don't know" and "I don't understand the question, please clarify" and so on are perfectly acceptable answers). I have asked you several such questions, in the life of this thread, and it seems that you have not yet answered them.

Would you please answer the direct, pertinent questions I posted, concerning your ATM idea, as presented in this thread?

The point I was trying to make (which I almost made again, since I thought my post had been lost ), is that the effects are more or less constant across the equipotential surface. So, there won't be a difference at the equator, compared to the north pole. The special relativity effect of the velocity difference offsets the general relativity effect of the gravity difference. (They are both general relativity effects of course, but you know what I mean.)

The Title of my post is self-explanatory.Your pertinent questions ask other explanations of observations and experiments confirming validity of STR. I am not able to answer and it is not relevant to my approach. If ever MMX will be performed on Moon and it gives not-NULL result then my model will explain it and all those pertinent questions will lose the ground.Then people will seek the answers to them.
I want to discuss Logic of STR , not to learn from Q&A and good Text-book but with someone open to discussion.It is only difference in value-system. The Modern Physics under Relativity chose to go illogical if there is consistency with observations and experiments.But someday, Human Spirit(Scientific Spirit itself) will discard all these illogicalities.
You ask me to answer your questions and alternative explanation of muon detection & transverse doppler effect etc. I don't know their full background and implications. But I myself thought something about which please discuss with me. The increasing time dilation on Earth from pole to equator is a valid inference from STR and it must be tested. It can not be belittled on ground of non-inertial as other evidences presented in support of STR are also in non-inertial frame . The Time dilation must occur in rotational velocity too. Then it was said gravity will mask it- gravity will augment or mask? Please tell.Will it exactly mask from pole to equator? On mountains and mines and deep sea?
Then it was said Time dilation will be undetectable because of less velocity effect. The equal mass of radio-active material with short half-life may be put and observed in different laboratories from pole to equator.There are other Time-dependent parameters such as vibrations of crystals. The half-life of muon must also vary from pole to equator.
We must try to find out Truth and not rush to defend Theory.

1) If an MMX experiment were done, on the surface of the Earth, with sunlight, or starlight (rather than a local, fixed to the surface of the Earth light source), would it test the manesiro "Absolute Space" idea?

2) If an MMX experiment were done, on a satellite, orbiting the Earth, with sunlight, or starlight, or a local, fixed to the satellite light source, would any of these test the manesiro "Absolute Space" idea?

3) How does the manesiro "Absolute Space" idea account for the extensive stellar aberration observational data (including such data obtained far away from the Earth)?

4) To what extent has work with ring lasers, such as that of the Canterbury Ring Laser Project shown that the manesiro "Absolute Space" idea is inconsistent with good observational results?

As I said earlier, this ATM section of BAUT may not be a good place for you to do that.

As I see it, the scope of BAUT allows you to present one (or any combination) of the following:
-> SR is internally inconsistent
-> SR is inconsistent with other (good) theories of physics, where their respective domains of applicability overlap
-> SR is inconsistent with (relevant, good) observational or experimental results.

From reading your posts, I get the impression that you do not wish to present a case for any of these three.

If that is so, then it would seem that we have nothing to discuss.

If that is not so, then please state which of the three cases (or combination) you wish to present (and defend).Please show that the physical environment of locations on the Earth's pole, equator, and points in between meet the necessary conditions for SR. In particular, please show how the non-inertial nature of any such location can be ignored, with respect to any test of time dilation.A reminder: if you wish to make the claim that 'pole to equator' tests can be done, of SR, then the burden of showing that such tests are valid is yours.What will the variation in the half-life of a muon be, from pole to equator (according to manesiro)?Once more, the intent of this ATM section of BAUT is to afford those with ATM ideas the opportunity to present and defend them. The guiding principle in the challenges on ATM ideas is that of modern astronomy, astrophysics, space science, and cosmology.

The only defence that should be presented, in an ATM thread discussing an ATM idea, is the defence, by the proponents of that ATM idea, of that idea.

That's more or less correct, so far as we maintain the relationship to the equipotential.

GRACE has provided some very good data on this.

However, as SR was surely used, directly and indirectly, hundreds if not thousands of separate times, in the design, construction, launch, and on-going operation of GRACE, it may be illogical for manesiro to accept (or use) GRACE data (given the stated views of manesiro on Logic and SR). I for one am curious as to how the Earth's equipotential surface can be determined, without any reliance on SR being correct.

It's what we know as sea-level. Surveyors/geophysicists have been doing it for years. Of course, things are more accurate now

I guess I'm behind the times ... I was under the impression that 'sea level' had a whole universe of issues, in terms of it being a good measure of an 'equipotential surface', all the way from local topography, through the (well-known) effects of local masses (mountain ranges, under/over dense rocks, ...), and current, salinity and temperature factors, to the challenges of estimating an 'average' sea level from data contaminated by tides.