McCoin Last Thread

[Ziggurat]

I guess it is no big deal anymore so here is my username and password to access "Images". That way you don't have to join.

Those don't seem to work anymore. But I wouldn't suggest this as a real solution anyways, because people other than us could stumble upon it, and while I wouldn't dream of doing anything to your account, random trolls might. You can upload images directly to this message board if they aren't too large.

 

[Ziggurat]

Gee I thought I knew that considering I've had nuclear engineering. Damn it stop being picky to get a general view take the normally given dimensions of a nucleon and it's mass and convert into a spatial volume using the c^2 factor. For such a sharp scientist I'd think you could figure that out.

But that still doesn't convert to a spatial volume. The units aren't right. And you can't just drop some of the units to get it into a volume either, because what unit system you use (SI, cgs, Imperial, whatever) will then make a difference.

You are incapable of seeing anything but what has been ground into your brain as the ultimate fact - when the facts are it isn't.

I'm perfectly capable of using my brain, MacM, which is why I recognize that what you're doing doesn't make sense. Try it. Do the calculations, track the units carefully, and you'll find that you don't end up with a volume.

 

[MacM]

So why are you here? For someone who seems so very proud of thinking for himself and who looks down on mainstream scientists, you spend an awful lot of time trying to convince others of something (what, I'm still not sure). Why? Honestly, I just don't get it.

Actually there are a number of reasons.

1 - I have in the past been party to (3) formal debates with a High Energy Physicist. He at least acknowledged that much of my views were actually viable although he personally prefered to stay with relativity due to it's simplicity. I seek out those that have some small amount of common sense and aren't full of themselves. Most here seem completely unwilling to even consider that relativity may be wrong or that the assumption of time-space is in error based on a complete misunderstanding of the basis for the measured invariance of light.

2 - I have many physicist friends that I converse with which are of simular mind as I with regard to the falicy of relativity as a physical concept.

3 - One somewhat famous physicist actually wrote Chapter (7) "Calculus" in my original Manuscript.

4 - For anyone actually looking they would find this work has been viewed by many. One prediction I made was that there would be measured a 4.2E-9 pertabation in gravity during a lunar eclipse. Guess what a 4.28E-9 pertabation was measured by the Institute of Applied Geodesy, Frankfort West germany, Report #16.

A copy of a letter granting me the right to publish my work citing their findings is in my historical documents. I've never published because I have continued to make changes over the years and the work is not ready for publication.

Hint. All this phooey about "Units", "Math", etc is just that I have done considerable math in the past and have made several predictions which over the decades have become accepted as fact.

So I really don't need pompus, enflated egos telling me what I don't know or understand. What they don't understand is that their purported higher education is nothing more than an indoctrination and they have become tape recorders repeating what they have been told to recite. They have not been thaught to think.

Frankly I prefer my own education to theirs for theirs leads to a paycheck but no real discoveries.

 

[MacM]

Those don't seem to work anymore. But I wouldn't suggest this as a real solution anyways, because people other than us could stumble upon it, and while I wouldn't dream of doing anything to your account, random trolls might. You can upload images directly to this message board if they aren't too large.

What do you call large? I suspect they re much to large.

 

[MacM]

But that still doesn't convert to a spatial volume. The units aren't right. And you can't just drop some of the units to get it into a volume either, because what unit system you use (SI, cgs, Imperial, whatever) will then make a difference.



I'm perfectly capable of using my brain, MacM, which is why I recognize that what you're doing doesn't make sense. Try it. Do the calculations, track the units carefully, and you'll find that you don't end up with a volume.

Well I always give credit where credit is do. Your response here was far milder than I anticipated-

The problem is not that I don't do physics units I do. But that you can't seem to think if everything isn't laid out in some formal mathematical precise way where all units are resolved.

Hell I'm making general points of interest not some formal outlay. The fact is somewhere I made the conversion myself. I'll see if I can locate it.

 

[Uncayimmy]

1 - I have in the past been party to (3) formal debates with a High Energy Physicist. He at least acknowledged that much of my views were actually viable although he personally prefered to stay with relativity due to it's simplicity. I seek out those that have some small amount of common sense and aren't full of themselves. Most here seem completely unwilling to even consider that relativity may be wrong or that the assumption of time-space is in error based on a complete misunderstanding of the basis for the measured invariance of light.

That doesn't explain why you are posting here.

2 - I have many physicist friends that I converse with which are of simular mind as I with regard to the falicy of relativity as a physical concept.

That doesn't explain why you are posting here.

3 - One somewhat famous physicist actually wrote Chapter (7) "Calculus" in my original Manuscript.

That doesn't explain why you are posting here.

4 - For anyone actually looking they would find this work has been viewed by many. One prediction I made was that there would be measured a 4.2E-9 pertabation in gravity during a lunar eclipse. Guess what a 4.28E-9 pertabation was measured by the Institute of Applied Geodesy, Frankfort West germany, Report #16.

That doesn't explain why you are posting here.

A copy of a letter granting me the right to publish my work citing their findings is in my historical documents. I've never published because I have continued to make changes over the years and the work is not ready for publication.

That doesn't explain why you are posting here.

Hint. All this phooey about "Units", "Math", etc is just that I have done considerable math in the past and have made several predictions which over the decades have become accepted as fact.

That doesn't explain why you are posting here.

So I really don't need pompus, enflated egos telling me what I don't know or understand. What they don't understand is that their purported higher education is nothing more than an indoctrination and they have become tape recorders repeating what they have been told to recite. They have not been thaught to think.

Frankly I prefer my own education to theirs for theirs leads to a paycheck but no real discoveries.

Which leads me back to my question: Why are you posting here?

I'm not saying you cannot. I am not saying you should not. I am saying that I simply do not understand what you hope to accomplish, especially considering that you seem to look down on everyone.

I know this is getting off-topic, but perhaps if I understand where you are heading I can figure out what you're trying to say. Right now it's like I've been given a handful of puzzle pieces but not the box with the picture showing me what I'm supposed to be making. What am I supposed to walk away with after this these threads are done?

 

[Reality Check]

Actually there are a number of reasons.

1 - I have in the past been party to (3) formal debates with a High Energy Physicist. He at least acknowledged that much of my views were actually viable although he personally prefered to stay with relativity due to it's simplicity. I seek out those that have some small amount of common sense and aren't full of themselves. Most here seem completely unwilling to even consider that relativity may be wrong or that the assumption of time-space is in error based on a complete misunderstanding of the basis for the measured invariance of light.

2 - I have many physicist friends that I converse with which are of simular mind as I with regard to the falicy of relativity as a physical concept.

3 - One somewhat famous physicist actually wrote Chapter (7) "Calculus" in my original Manuscript.

4 - For anyone actually looking they would find this work has been viewed by many. One prediction I made was that there would be measured a 4.2E-9 pertabation in gravity during a lunar eclipse. Guess what a 4.28E-9 pertabation was measured by the Institute of Applied Geodesy, Frankfort West germany, Report #16.

A copy of a letter granting me the right to publish my work citing their findings is in my historical documents. I've never published because I have continued to make changes over the years and the work is not ready for publication.

Hint. All this phooey about "Units", "Math", etc is just that I have done considerable math in the past and have made several predictions which over the decades have become accepted as fact.

So I really don't need pompus, enflated egos telling me what I don't know or understand. What they don't understand is that their purported higher education is nothing more than an indoctrination and they have become tape recorders repeating what they have been told to recite. They have not been thaught to think.

Frankly I prefer my own education to theirs for theirs leads to a paycheck but no real discoveries.

The problem with this post is that it does not mean anything unless you actually give citations and name names, e.g.

• Who was the "High Energy Physicist" and what did he actually acknowledge?
• Who was the "somewhat famous physicist" and what was the "Calculus" chapter standard calculus as found in any math textbook?
• Where did the Institute of Applied Geodesy publish their paper about the "pertabation"?
• Why did they have to give you permission to cite them? That is strange since anyone is free to cite any published paper.

You do realize that unpublished predictions are almost as bad as no predictions at all? If you do not tell anyone about your predictions before they are confirmed then there is always the suspicion that you revised your work to include the prediction.

As for "All this phooey about "Units", "Math", etc":
We do not have access to your magnum opus that you have been working on for so long (decades?). Thus we have to judge your mathematical ability from your posts here, e.g.

No you have a problem with common language. E=mc^2 is nothing more than a compaction factor. Take the mass/volume of a nucleon for example and increase the volume by c^2.

has a couple of problems:

• It is obviously wrong using simple dimensional analysis since c^2 has dimensions of length squared divided by time squared. A volume has dimensions of length cubed. So the statement "increase the volume by c^2" in nonsense.
• You need to define what the "volume" of a nucleon is. Are you asuming that they are spheres and working from some sort of raduis? Is that radius the charge radius (but what about the uncharged neutron)?

However since you seem to have your own private langauge of mathematics and physics maybe c is not the speed of light, nucleon may not be nucleon, etc. In that case you need to be clearer about what the post really means.

 

[RussDill]

ok...I'm really doubting the usability of further discussion.

First, c^2 is a constant area, not volume. Second, increasing the volume of something would involve a multiplication by a unit-less constant. For example, if you have an area of 1 m^2, doubling the area would be a multiplication by 2, not 2 m^2.

Sorry, I made an error here, If taken literally, c^2 is the rate of change of a measure of a change in area (m^2/s^2) making your volume comment make even less sense...

 

[RussDill]

Perhaps I've tried to move to fast through this. Perhaps you might forget c^2 and just increase volume by 9E16 -

9*10^16 is what you get if you measure the speed of light in m/s. Why are meters and seconds special? If I measure it in light years per year, then I would get a factor of one. Are you seeing what is going on here? The 9*10^6 is a completely meaningless number. If I choose MPH instead of m/s, then the number I get is 4.5*10^17th. Why would the m/s be correct, and the mph number be wrong?

 

[RussDill]

Depends on what you want to measure. Once devices are brought together they will tick at the same rate but their dilation history is full of accelerations and decelerations, hence they will have accumulated different amounts of time.

I want to measure:

a) What signals I receive from the satellites from earth and when they are received
b) What signals I receive from the satellites from mars and when they are received

(Assume the signal sent is the value of the clock on board the satellite)

 

[MacM]

That doesn't explain why you are posting here.


That doesn't explain why you are posting here.


That doesn't explain why you are posting here.


That doesn't explain why you are posting here.


That doesn't explain why you are posting here.


That doesn't explain why you are posting here.


Which leads me back to my question: Why are you posting here?

I'm not saying you cannot. I am not saying you should not. I am saying that I simply do not understand what you hope to accomplish, especially considering that you seem to look down on everyone.

I know this is getting off-topic, but perhaps if I understand where you are heading I can figure out what you're trying to say. Right now it's like I've been given a handful of puzzle pieces but not the box with the picture showing me what I'm supposed to be making. What am I supposed to walk away with after this these threads are done?

Let me simplify. I have been on numerous sites over the years. Invariably I have found scientists that would send me a PM saying what they are afraid to say in public. Relativity sucks and keep up the pressure.

I have to admit there hasn't been one from here that have done so yet.

I hope you walk away with some understanding that relativity does not hold the exclusive right to physical correctness. When compelled to respond to an alternative view by showing it's falicy vs just reciting SR or GR others have ultimately acknowledged that Lorentz Contraction may just be an arbitrary artifact of misapplied basic physics in a closed mathematical construct.

i.e. - Claiming a clock is ticking slower than another when comparing frames but then claiming it's proper time is correct therefor distance must have changed.

Remember velocity is a calculated composite relationship of two physical principles. Time & Distance. If Clock "A" is dilated relative to Clock "B" then it is ticking slower and when you compute velocity in each frame you would get a different relative velocity computation. Where "s" is distance. v1 = ds / dt1 and v2 = ds / dt2.

With respective tick rates of clocks in keeping with emperical data means ds did NOT change because trip time is fully accounted for by the dilated tick rate of the traveling clock.

The relative velocity IS the same universally but locally the assumption that relative velocity is the same therefor distance must have changed is bogus because it ignores the dilated condition of one clock being used to time the trip.

It is (in SR terms) a bit "Counter Intuitive" to not think of relative velocity as being symmetrical. That is if I pass you standing along the road side while I was going 60 Mph that we both would not compute 60 Mph relative velocity. But the fact is we won't and that is where relativity falls apart.

 

[MacM]

The problem with this post is that it does not mean anything unless you actually give citations and name names, e.g.

• Who was the "High Energy Physicist" and what did he actually acknowledge?
• Who was the "somewhat famous physicist" and what was the "Calculus" chapter standard calculus as found in any math textbook?
• Where did the Institute of Applied Geodesy publish their paper about the "pertabation"?
• Why did they have to give you permission to cite them? That is strange since anyone is free to cite any published paper.

You do realize that unpublished predictions are almost as bad as no predictions at all? If you do not tell anyone about your predictions before they are confirmed then there is always the suspicion that you revised your work to include the prediction.

As for "All this phooey about "Units", "Math", etc":
We do not have access to your magnum opus that you have been working on for so long (decades?). Thus we have to judge your mathematical ability from your posts here, e.g.

has a couple of problems:

• It is obviously wrong using simple dimensional analysis since c^2 has dimensions of length squared divided by time squared. A volume has dimensions of length cubed. So the statement "increase the volume by c^2" in nonsense.
• You need to define what the "volume" of a nucleon is. Are you asuming that they are spheres and working from some sort of raduis? Is that radius the charge radius (but what about the uncharged neutron)?

However since you seem to have your own private langauge of mathematics and physics maybe c is not the speed of light, nucleon may not be nucleon, etc. In that case you need to be clearer about what the post really means.

Dr Edward Allard - Chapter (7)
Dr Lincoln - Debates.

The Institute detected the pertabation over 50 years ago. I sought their permission to show according to my view how that pertabation occured and referred to their work . I didn't have to have their permission but they gave it.

Now as to units, etc. You are still trying to read to much into it. The mention of E = mc^2 was to express the compaction ratio of space into mass. That is space is free flowing energy and that energy compacted into mass has that ratio. m and s?. I tried to simplify for you the fact that 9E16 would be the volume ratio. This has nothing to do with units conversions.

 

[MacM]

9*10^16 is what you get if you measure the speed of light in m/s. Why are meters and seconds special? If I measure it in light years per year, then I would get a factor of one. Are you seeing what is going on here? The 9*10^6 is a completely meaningless number. If I choose MPH instead of m/s, then the number I get is 4.5*10^17th. Why would the m/s be correct, and the mph number be wrong?

9E16 is NOT a meaningless number it is a ratio of compaction between space and mass; which accounts forthe conversion of E -nto mass. Space is E!.

 

[MacM]

I want to measure:

a) What signals I receive from the satellites from earth and when they are received
b) What signals I receive from the satellites from mars and when they are received

(Assume the signal sent is the value of the clock on board the satellite)

You are making no sense. I first understood that you were manufacturing satellites on Earth and Mars but they were being deployed around Mars. Now you seem to be talking about signals from Earth satellites and Martian satellites mixed.???

 

[RussDill]

You are making no sense. I first understood that you were manufacturing satellites on Earth and Mars but they were being deployed around Mars. Now you seem to be talking about signals from Earth satellites and Martian satellites mixed.???

This is why Math is so great, english is too ambiguois. The from indicates the reception of signals in this example, not the transmission. The satellites are orbiting mars. The signals are monitored from earth and mars.

 

[RussDill]

Let me simplify. I have been on numerous sites over the years. Invariably I have found scientists that would send me a PM saying what they are afraid to say in public. Relativity sucks and keep up the pressure.

I agree, you've completely boiled down and simplified your argument here:

* Argument from authority ("scientists")
* Argument of some conspiracy ("afraid to say in public")

I hope you walk away with some understanding that relativity does not hold the exclusive right to physical correctness. When compelled to respond to an alternative view by showing it's falicy vs just reciting SR or GR others have ultimately acknowledged that Lorentz Contraction may just be an arbitrary artifact of misapplied basic physics in a closed mathematical construct.

Here is where your argument is muddled, you oscillate between a hard disagreement, and a soft disagreement. In your soft disagreement, you make statements like "relativity does not hold the exclusive right to physical correctness" implying that GR and SR make predictions backed by experiment. In your hard disagreement below, you seem to be claiming that SR makes predictions that disagree with experiment.

i.e. - Claiming a clock is ticking slower than another when comparing frames but then claiming it's proper time is correct therefor distance must have changed.

You've used way too many pronouns here. I have no clue what you are attempting to say. You seem to be saying that:

a) There must be some absolute clock that ticks throughout space and has some kind of importance.
b) You can formulate a theory based on this if you eliminate length contraction.

Recall that both length contraction and time dilation were both part of physics years before SR. They did not grow out of SR.

Remember velocity is a calculated composite relationship of two physical principles. Time & Distance.

According to who? Why are distance and time special units of measure and velocity a composite unit of measure? You can just as easily claim that time and velocity are special units of measure and define distance as a composite of velocity and time.

If Clock "A" is dilated relative to Clock "B" then it is ticking slower and when you compute velocity in each frame you would get a different relative velocity computation.

You described a situation that has never been observed to exist (in inertial reference frames). You will never observe a clock in another inertial reference frame ticking faster than your own. Your example claims that when using "B"'s frame of reference, clock "A" will tick faster than your own. Please to provide experimental data to show this.

Where "s" is distance. v1 = ds / dt1 and v2 = ds / dt2.

A measurement of velocity depends on a chosen inertial reference frame. So lets say that "A" is a clock launched from the mars base. "B" is a clock launched from the earth. Both are sent towards eachother at high rates of speed. Are you claiming that both will measure different relative velocities?

With respective tick rates of clocks in keeping with emperical data means ds did NOT change because trip time is fully accounted for by the dilated tick rate of the traveling clock.

Use the two clocks, one from mars and one from earth and show me the math (The clocks are on a collision course)

The relative velocity IS the same universally but locally the assumption that relative velocity is the same therefor distance must have changed is bogus because it ignores the dilated condition of one clock being used to time the trip.

Does universally mean from any inertial reference frame? Or a particular reference frame. If so, which one?

It is (in SR terms) a bit "Counter Intuitive" to not think of relative velocity as being symmetrical. That is if I pass you standing along the road side while I was going 60 Mph that we both would not compute 60 Mph relative velocity. But the fact is we won't and that is where relativity falls apart.

Yes we would. Why wouldn't we?

 

[RussDill]

9E16 is NOT a meaningless number it is a ratio of compaction between space and mass; which accounts forthe conversion of E -nto mass. Space is E!.

Why is 9*10^16 correct and 4.5*10^17 wrong?

 

[Reality Check]

Dr Edward Allard - Chapter (7)
Dr Lincoln - Debates.

You still have not got the trick of citation or answering questions so lets try again.
"Dr Edward Allard - Chapter (7)" of what?

• Is he the "High Energy Physicist" and if so what did he actually acknowledge?
• Is he the "somewhat famous physicist" and if so what was the "Calculus" chapter the standard calculus as found in any math textbook?

"Dr Lincoln - Debates" - Is Debates a book or a journal?

• Is he the "High Energy Physicist" and if so what did he actually acknowledge?
• Is he the "somewhat famous physicist" and if so what was the "Calculus" chapter the standard calculus as found in any math textbook?

The Institute detected the pertabation over 50 years ago. I sought their permission to show according to my view how that pertabation occured and referred to their work . I didn't have to have their permission but they gave it.

Citation to their paper?
Alternately you must have a copy of the paper - Could you make it available?

You also need to show your calculation for the perturbation so that it can be matched against this 50 year old observation and checked for validity.
Have you checked it against other data?
And just what the cause of this "pertabation" of gravity? Why the lunar eclipse important?
As far as I know, gravity perturbations happen all the time because the Earth and Moon are not perfect spheres.

Now as to units, etc. You are still trying to read to much into it. The mention of E = mc^2 was to express the compaction ratio of space into mass. That is space is free flowing energy and that energy compacted into mass has that ratio. m and s?. I tried to simplify for you the fact that 9E16 would be the volume ratio. This has nothing to do with units conversions.

You seem to be under the impression that this is something to do with "units conversions". That is wrong. It is to do with a basic bit of mathematical physics that high school students should know about. You may have forgotten it in your long career so here is an explanation of dimensional analysis.

Here is what you actually stated:

No you have a problem with common language. E=mc^2 is nothing more than a compaction factor. Take the mass/volume of a nucleon for example and increase the volume by c^2.

Now you just throw "9E16" into the mix (when c^2 is actually 8.98755179 × 10¹⁶ m² / s²).
Which leads to these questions:

1. How is the compaction ratio of space into mass calculated?
2. What is the numeric value of the compaction ratio of space into mass?
3. What has it got to do with E=mc^2 which is nothing to do with either volume or space?
4. What are the units of 9E16?
5. Or is it a dimensionless value - in that case why do you think quoting a number with units (c^2) makes thing "simpler"?
6. Why did you originally not quote the number and state how you calculated it?

 

[MacM]

This is why Math is so great, english is too ambiguois. The from indicates the reception of signals in this example, not the transmission. The satellites are orbiting mars. The signals are monitored from earth and mars.

Then the next question would be "Why the question"?

What possible relevence does it have?

 

[MacM]

I agree, you've completely boiled down and simplified your argument here:

* Argument from authority ("scientists")
* Argument of some conspiracy ("afraid to say in public")

I don't adhere to any conspiracy theory at all. It is AD HOC reality. Those that oppose relativity don't get or keep good jobs, regardless of their education and/or experience before opposing relativity.

Facts are not a conspiracy. Many many good scientists reputations have been slandered just for speaking out. It has to do with the selfrightous attitude of relativists, not some conspiracy.

Here is where your argument is muddled, you oscillate between a hard disagreement, and a soft disagreement. In your soft disagreement, you make statements like "relativity does not hold the exclusive right to physical correctness" implying that GR and SR make predictions backed by experiment. In your hard disagreement below, you seem to be claiming that SR makes predictions that disagree with experiment.

Both are true. SR predicts contraction of distance as a function of relative velocity (for one frame) but in another frame clocks are dilated. A common physical cause does not generate two different physical consequences based on mere perspective of frames. Lorentz contraction has never been demonstrated physically.

You've used way too many pronouns here. I have no clue what you are attempting to say. You seem to be saying that:

a) There must be some absolute clock that ticks throughout space and has some kind of importance.

b) You can formulate a theory based on this if you eliminate length contraction.

Recall that both length contraction and time dilation were both part of physics years before SR. They did not grow out of SR.

And the Earth as the center of all motion preceeded that. It wasn't correct either.

According to who? Why are distance and time special units of measure and velocity a composite unit of measure? You can just as easily claim that time and velocity are special units of measure and define distance as a composite of velocity and time.

This is actually a matter of choice and logic. The point being you must pick one and not flip-flop from one to the other changing frames. One could argue that distance contracts but clocks continue to tick at a common rate but logically that carries with it certain unpleasant consequences - i.e.

1 - Under relavistic conditions you get closer to something the faster you receed from it.

2 - The whole of the universe collapses to virtual nothing for a particle accelerated to near light's v = c in a matter of milli-seconds.

3 - The accelerating expansion of the universe must in fact be due to decelleration since at relavistic velocities near the edge of the universe such objects would be subject to spatial contraction not expansion.

Oscam's Razor would suggest it is clock tick rate based on some absolute universal energy level and not spatial contraction that produces the measured results - BUT not both as a matter of observer perspective.

You described a situation that has never been observed to exist (in inertial reference frames). You will never observe a clock in another inertial reference frame ticking faster than your own. Your example claims that when using "B"'s frame of reference, clock "A" will tick faster than your own. Please to provide experimental data to show this.

You are getting lost once again. This is NOT about what you might "Observe" or "Percieve" during relative motion but about permanent physical change as demonstrated by dilated clocks and accumulated time differences when compared in a common rest frame "After" having had relative velocity.

A measurement of velocity depends on a chosen inertial reference frame. So lets say that "A" is a clock launched from the mars base. "B" is a clock launched from the earth. Both are sent towards eachother at high rates of speed. Are you claiming that both will measure different relative velocities?

Correct. The key here is the term "Measure" which is based on ds / dt and where they have different acceleration histories hence different (unknown) absolute velocities, therefor different dilated tick rates or "t" standards.

Use the two clocks, one from mars and one from earth and show me the math (The clocks are on a collision course)

Assume some universal absolute rest reference from which these vehicles have achieved the following respective velocities.


M = 0.1c and E = 0.3c.

GammaM = 1.005037815

GammaE = 1.048284837

Respective ticks rates universally would be:

tM = 0.994987437

tE = 0.953939201

Now assuming Velocity Addition (which I don't BTW) they would see according to SR a common relative velocity of 0.338349515c, not 0.4c.

However that ignores the fact that one will ultimately be found to be ticking slower than the other according to accumulated times. Both are slightly dilated unversally.

tM / tE = 1.043030243

Hence (excluding velocity addition) M computes 0.1c * 1.005037815 = 0.100503c for himself relative to mars and computes E leaving earth at 0.3015c for a closing of 0.402c (with velocity addition) = 0.39017c!

While E computes 0.3c * 1.04828 = 0.31448c for himself and sees M as leaving mars at 0.104828c. For a closing rate of 0.419308c (with VA) = 0.44799c!

Does universally mean from any inertial reference frame? Or a particular reference frame. If so, which one?

Universally is the unknown, not measured absolute rest frame.

Yes we would. Why wouldn't we?

Because if you merely accept physical properties as being truely physical and not some flip-flop mathematical assumptions then clocks with motion have different tick rates and will compute different relative velocities.

I fully acknowledge that this view becomes a bit more difficult to work with mathematically but that does not make it any less logical from a pure physicas vantage point.

You are starting to ask appropriate questions. It would also be appropriate if you were to note that my calculations are correct or not. See I do the math also inspite of assertions to the contrary here..