Okay, I will tell you now those "Rest Frames" are theoretical baseline comparisons for simplification of the calculation but I agree that LT, is a correct methology of calculation, you are talking about the below correct. I use the LT matrix myself sometimes.
I'm not sure I completely understand what you are saying when you say "those "Rest Frames" are theoretical baseline comparisons for simplification of the calculation." But I think I do, more or less. If I understand you correctly you are now saying that, notwithstanding your persistent objections that preferred frames do not comport with "reality," they are useful and even necessary. If that's what you're saying, I agree. The truth is, you can't make any meaningful calculations without positing a preferred frame, however arbitrary that designation may be.
SR, when employing the LT, always establishes a motionless, preferred frame, i.e., one which is treated as being at absolute rest. By doing so, it mimics a PFT in a half-assed way. And that's the reason that it can, in limited circumstances, appear to give an "answer" which matches one provided by a PFT.
Now, I understand, and to a large extent agree with, your point about a preferred frame being an "idealization." But what I think you're overlooking is that, if you want to reject this because it's "unreal," then you should object FAR more strongly to SR than to a PFT (preferred frame theory).
In the big picture, SR ends up positing an infinite number of "preferred frames," each of which is simultaneously "in motion" from a different perspective. In SR the "facts" presumed in any given frame of reference contradict the "facts" of every other frame, and vice versa. The only possible result of this is conceptual chaos and utter absurdity from any physical or logical perspective. It doesn't take long for SR to end up abandoning its own premises and contradicting itself.
Yet you seem to think that SR "in it's current form" is superior. Why is that, Vic?
Edited by Moronium, 05 April 2019 - 10:41 AM.