"The moving clock vs a stationary clock, as I have explained, is a fallacy of false equivalence."
Clete: No, it flatly is not, Dave. You showing up to say so doesn't count as an argument. It is only that much more evidence that you do not understand what is being talked about.
I didn't just say the two clock illustration was a fallacy, I explained why it was a fallacy. I would prefer that you explain how my explanation is invalid rather than just say I don't understand the subject.
I missed it. Please repost where you explained how it qualifies as a fallacy.
I think I'll move on and start a thread where time dilation, spacetime, and Dialect can be challenged, this is a debate forum, yes?
That is precisely what those videos are explicitly about, Dave!
I do think I have a a good understanding of the subject (and it's metaphysical implications), not a complete understanding, but who does. Dialect has been created in order to solve the many problems and contradictions inherent in the relativity of modern physics and cosmology where the only absolutes is there are no absolutes.
It would be interesting for you to make some attempt to explain how these videos don't resolves those issues by moving the problem back into the realm of physics rather than being confined within the realm of pure, and very esoteric mathematics.
As far as I can tell, your every objection is against the conventional understanding of time dilation and length contraction and you've resorted to explanations that demonstrate that you cannot possibly have anything close to a good understanding of the subject. No one who knew anything at all about it would have ever brought up anything related to visual perspective in an attempt to explain these experimentally verified effects.
From the first few seconds of the first video...
"Indeed, something remarkable emerges when we decide to treat relativity, not as a theory about space, time or kinematics, but rather as a theory about waves."
and from the same video's description....
"What causes Time Dilation? In the context of special relativity, where different observers disagree on basic facts about space and time, there has never been a clear consensus on this question, even among the experts. But an alternative interpretation known as Dynamical Relativity offers an entirely mechanistic explanation of the phenomenon, devoid of any mind-bending, space-and-time-altering pseudo-mysticism."
How is that not precisely what you are looking for?