Who's familiar with the conversion? - "In 15 years' ship-time they could reach Andromeda

The Lorentz transforms (LT) say that a moving clock will run slower than a stationary one. Both special relativity (SR) and Lorentzian relativity (LR) use the LT. So what's the difference?

Well, start with two "observers" who are moving with respect to each other, call them A and B.

In SR, A will say that he is stationary, so B is the one moving, so therefore B's clock is running slow. At the same time...

B will say that he is stationary, so A is the one moving, so therefore A's clock is running slow.

Then SR says they are both right. Each clock "really does" run slower than the other. See if you can figure that one out, eh?

LR will say that, as between the two, there can be only one "moving" clock. This could simply mean that one is moving "faster" than the other, because the faster you go, the more time slows down for you. Neither A nor B has to be seen as "absolutely motionless" as in SR. They could both be moving.

In LR, if it is A that is moving faster, then A's clock is slower than B's and, needless to say, B's clock is running FASTER than A's (not slower).

Which one makes more sense, I ask ya?

With respect to the original assertions being made, LR would say it's impossible to go 14 billion light years in just 23 years WITHOUT exceeding the speed of light.

SR? Sure, you can do that, in "theory" at least.

Sometimes you think the Earth frame of reference is correct. Sometimes you think the Mars frame of reference is correct.

For whom will time slow down (according to your understanding of Physics) the person on Mars or the person on Earth?

This seems to contradict what you are saying now

Clocks slows down, to a greater or lesser degree, for EVERYTHING that is in motion (relative to your chosen preferred frame, be it the CMB, or whatever).

This is exactly what SR says (as long as you accept that everything is in motion compared to other frames of reference).

There is really nothing more to discuss now.

A planet orbiting the sun is said, in SR, to be "accelerating" because it is constantly changing direction and sometimes speed, too.

You seem to think that you are smarter than Albert Einstein

This isn't SR. This is Isaac Newton

Einstein's theory has another marked advantage over mine. Whereas I have not been able to obtain for the equations referred to moving axes exactly the same form as for those which apply to a stationary system, Einstein has accomplished this by means of a system of new variables slightly different from those which I have introduced.

The total eclipse of the sun of May 29, resulted in a striking confirmation of the new theory of the universal attractive power of gravitation developed by Albert Einstein, and thus reinforced the conviction that the defining of this theory is one of the most important steps ever taken in the domain of natural science.

What about Steven Hawking and Neil DeGrasse Tyson? The giants in the field of Physics today all base their work on General Relativity.

Lorentz's work came before Einstein. He came around and eventually promoted Einstein's work on General Relativity.

Implications of an Absolute Simultaneity Theory for Cosmology and Universe Acceleration

An alternate Lorentz transformation, Absolute Lorentz Transformation (ALT), has similar kinematics to special relativity yet maintains absolute simultaneity in the context of a preferred reference frame. In this study, it is shown that ALT is compatible with current experiments to test Lorentz invariance only if the proposed preferred reference frame is locally equivalent to the Earth-centered non-rotating inertial reference frame, with the inference that in an ALT framework, preferred reference frames are associated with centers of gravitational mass. ...

Applying this theoretical framework to cosmological data produces a scenario of universal time contraction in the past. In this scenario, past time contraction would be associated with increased levels of blueshifted light emissions from cosmological objects when viewed from our current perspective...Adjusting for the effects of time contraction on a redshift–distance modulus diagram produces a linear distribution of supernovae over the full redshift spectrum that is consistent with a non-accelerating universe.

“It may well be that a relativistic version of [quantum] theory, while Lorentz invariant andlocal at the observational level, may be necessarily non-local and with a preferred frame (or aether) at the fundamental level..

I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincare´ thought that there was an aether—a preferred frame of reference—but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether. Now, in that way you can imagine that there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light...Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant… [This] pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincare´, Larmor and Fitzgerald, was perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent with relativity theory. The idea that there is an aether, and these Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor dilations occur, and that as a result the instruments do not detect motion through the aether–that is a perfectly coherent point of view.”(J.S. Bell)

http://www-e.unimagdeburg.de/mertens/teaching/seminar/themen/AJP001261.pdf

Although faster-than-light force propagation speeds do violate Einstein special relativity (SR), they are in accord with Lorentzian relativity, which has never been experimentally distinguished from SR—at least, not in favor of SR. Indeed, far from upsetting much of current physics, the main changes induced by this new perspective are beneficial to areas where physics has been struggling, such as explaining experimental evidence for non-locality in quantum physics, the dark matter issue in cosmology, and the possible unification of forces. Recognition of a faster-than-lightspeed propagation of gravity, as indicated by all existing experimental evidence, may be the key to taking conventional physics to the next plateau.

Al was never happy with SR, for a number of reasons.

The Equivalence Principle analysis of the twin paradox does not use any real gravity, and so does not use any General Relativity. (General Relativity is the study of real gravitational fields, not pseudo ones, so it has nothing to say about the twin paradox). Nevertheless, what General Relativity does say about real gravitational fields does hold in a restricted sense for pseudo gravitational fields. The one thing we need here is that time runs slower as you descend into the potential well of a pseudo force field. We can use that fact to our advantage when analysing the twin paradox. But it needs to be emphasised that we are not using any actual General Relativity here, and no one ever needs to, to analyse the paradox. We are simply grabbing a result about real gravitational fields from General Relativity, because we know (from other work) that it does apply to a pseudo gravitational field.