[Centra (OP)]

Apparently these scientists would disagree, judging from their article:

Just to clarify; do you mean this article? (Obviously, the original is in French)
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/pdf/Dufour_and_Prunier-On_the_Fringe_Movement_Registered_on_a_Platform_in_Uniform_Motion_%281942%29.pdf
The French version's here but it's paywalled anyway.
https://jphysrad.journaldephysique.org/articles/jphysrad/abs/1942/09/jphysrad_1942__3_9_153_0/jphysrad_1942__3_9_153_0.html

Yes, that's exactly what I mean, it clearly states that SR was off by a huge amount and Einstein Fan Club President, Paul Langevin, was unable to cover for him. In fact, the motion involved is so slow that SR probably wouldn't even come into play, Einstein simply has no explanation for Sagnac effect, which is why he never even attempted to explain it, even though he was around after the experiments. Show me one quote from Einstein explaining it.

[Bored chemist]

Show me one quote from Einstein explaining it.

Just to be clear...
How old do you think that Einstein and Langevin were when that paper was published?

[Bored chemist]

Einstein simply has no explanation for Sagnac effect,

Yes he does.

So SR predicts Sagnac just fine

[Centra (OP)]

Show me one quote from Einstein explaining it.

Just to be clear...
How old do you think that Einstein and Langevin were when that paper was published?

Einstein 63, Langevin 70.So your point is that a 63 year old man is incapable of writing? Why was Langevin able to comment on that article, and get shown to still be wrong, but Einstein wasn't? Face it, there are still things that SR can't account for, so the case on the velocity of light is not closed, contrary to the opinion of the Einstein Fan Club

[Centra (OP)]

Einstein simply has no explanation for Sagnac effect,

Yes he does.

So SR predicts Sagnac just fine

No he doesn't, your turn. From Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories
By Al Kelly:

This author has located no reference at all by Einstein to the Sagnac tests, and that can be viewed as very strange because the tests were on the speed of light, which is the basis and core of SR. Einstein visited Miller in the U.S.A. in 1921, where tests on the speed of light were in progress. Lorentz also visited the same site. Sagnac's work was referenced by Silberstein (1921), who worked with Michelson on the latter's 1925 tests (described later). Miller was a co-worker of Michelson. Silberstein (1921) remarked, "As a matter of fact, Einstein himself never entered into the details of this important problem of rotation" and "In fine, the optical circuit experiment may easily become crucial and fatal for Einstein's theory."

[Bored chemist]

So your point is that a 63 year old man is incapable of writing?

No, my point is that your focus on what just 2 old men, among thousands of scientists, is absurd.

[Centra (OP)]

So your point is that a 63 year old man is incapable of writing?

No, my point is that your focus on what just 2 old men, among thousands of scientists, is absurd.

Oh, so Einstein and Langevin are "just 2 old men" huh? So why do you hold at least one of them out to be the authority on the characteristics of light in relative frames?

[Centra (OP)]

Here is something to consider in regard to relative velocity of inertial frames. If one sphere has a mass of 10 kg and another has a mass of 1 kg and their motion is such that the distance between them is increasing at, say, 165,000 km/s, can they be considered to be moving away from each other at the same velocity for purposes of calculating time dilation? Maybe not, maybe they should really be considered to be moving away from a certain point between them which is determined by their relative masses, like the barycenter of two orbiting masses. The 10 kg sphere would be considered to be moving away from that point at a lesser velocity than the 1 kg sphere is. The following is just to illustrate the principle involved, I don't know for certain that the velocities relative to the barycenter would be a simple ratio of 1 to 10, it would have to be close, there's probably some kind of squaring involved. For this illustration it's not necessary to have the exact velocities anyway, just that they total the same as the direct velocity between the two spheres. The difference shwn at the end of the illustration is so great that I can't see it mattering what the exact figures would be, because the two velocities relative to the barycenter would definitely not be equal, whatever their true exact values might be.

If the 10 kg sphere is moving away from the barycenter at velocity 15,000 km/s and the 1 kg sphere is moving away from it in the opposite direction at 150,000 km/s, you might calculate the apparent time dilation from either frame to be the simple sum of those two velocities,165,000 km/s. Using a time dilation calculator based on Einstein's equations and enter a time interval of 1 second and an observer velocity of 165,000 km/s the answer 1.197728 seconds. Now what happens when you, instead, enter the velocities of each sphere relative to the barycenter separately? For the 10 kg sphere you enter 15,000 km/s and get 1.001254 seconds. For the 1 kg sphere you enter 150,000 km/s and get 1.154967 seconds. What happens when you find the difference between those two figures? You get the true time difference which would be perceived in both frames in relation to the other, 0.153713 seconds, which is not the same as 0.197728 seconds, which is what we got by entering the sum of the two velocities as a single figure.

It appears that I may have identified a flaw in Einstein's equations for time dilation. Time dilation cannot be accurately calculated from the velocity of two objects of different masses as a single velocity relative to each other, it can only be calculated from the separate velocities of each relative to their barycenter, in my opinion. If those spheres were the only two objects in a vacuum, their barycenter would be the reference for "stationary time" and their velocities and perceived time dilation would each be relative to it, if velocity based time dilation is a reality. If their gravitational time dilation is different based on their different masses then, logically, so would their motion based time dilation be, and using their barycenter as the reference would be the logical way to deal with that, just like it's used to deal with the orbit of two masses.

This shows that it may not always be wise to accept theories as being valid just because they've been accepted by many for a long period of time, flaws could be identified at any time, like with the theory of the sun revolving around the earth.

[Origin]

Here is something to consider in regard to relative velocity of inertial frames. If one sphere has a mass of 10 kg and another has a mass of 1 kg and their motion is such that the distance between them is increasing at, say, 165,000 km/s, can they be considered to be moving away from each other at the same velocity for purposes of calculating time dilation?

Yes.

Maybe not, maybe they should really be considered to be moving away from a certain point between them which is determined by their relative masses, like the barycenter of two orbiting masses. The 10 kg sphere would be considered to be moving away from that point at a lesser velocity than the 1 kg sphere is. The following is just to illustrate the principle involved, I don't know for certain that the velocities relative to the barycenter would be a simple ratio of 1 to 10, it would have to be close. For this illustration it's not necessary to have the exact velocities anyway, just that they total the same as the direct velocity between the two spheres. The difference shwn at the end of the illustration is so great that I can't see it mattering what the exact figures would be, because the two velocities relative to the barycenter would definitely not be equal, whatever their true exact values might be.

No, that would give the wrong answer.

If the 10 kg sphere is moving away from the barycenter at velocity 15,000 km/s and the 1 kg sphere is moving away from it in the opposite direction at 150,000 km/s, you might calculate the apparent time dilation from either frame to be the simple sum of those two velocities,165,000 km/s. Using a time dilation calculator based on Einstein's equations and enter a time interval of 1 second and an observer velocity of 165,000 km/s the answer 1.197728 seconds. Now what happens when you, instead, enter the velocities of each sphere relative to the barycenter separately? For the 10 kg sphere you enter 15,000 km/s and get 1.001254 seconds. For the 1 kg sphere you enter 150,000 km/s and get 1.154967 seconds. What happens when you find the difference between those two figures? You get the true time difference which would be perceived in both frames in relation to the other, 0.153713 seconds, which is not the same as 0.197728 seconds, which is what we got by entering the sum of the two velocities as a single figure.

See, that gives you the wrong answer.

It appears that I may have identified a flaw in Einstein's equations for time dilation. Time dilation cannot be accurately calculated from the velocity of two objects of different masses as a single velocity relative to each other, it can only be calculated from the separate velocities of each relative to their barycenter, in my opinion. If those spheres were the only two objects in a vacuum, their barycenter would be the reference for "stationary time" and their velocities and perceived time dilation would each be relative to it, if velocity based time dilation is a reality. If their gravitational time dilation is different based on their different masses then, logically, so would their motion based time dilation be, and using their barycenter as the reference would be the logical way to deal with that, just like it's used to deal with the orbit of two masses.

Nope.  You have found a flaw in you understanding, just one of many.

This shows that it may not always be wise to accept theories as being valid just because they've been accepted by many for a long period of time, flaws could be identified at any time, like with the theory of the sun revolving around the earth

This actually shows that you do not know what you are talking about.
In university you are not asked to 'accept' theories you are tasked with proving that they are accurate by experiments and mathematics. 

[Centra (OP)]

This actually shows that you do not know what you are talking about.
In university you are not asked to 'accept' theories you are tasked with proving that they are accurate by experiments and mathematics.

I think your post shows how naive you are. It is in no way logical that two objects of different masses should be considered as equally moving away from each other in a vacuum. Why don't you explain how that is logical, Mr Science. So far you haven't explained anything, just issued pronouncements based on nothing whatsoever, like I'm supposed to accept it and say oh gee I guess I'm wrong, some random guy said so.

[Bored chemist]

So why do you hold at least one of them out to be the authority on the characteristics of light in relative frames?

I didn't.
This is what I said was the authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

It's called experimental evidence.

[Bored chemist]

Do you seriously think I accept your pronouncements as valid in any way?

We don't think you accept science...

[Bored chemist]

It appears that I may have identified a flaw in Einstein's equations for time dilation.

It only appears that way to you.

[Centra (OP)]

So why do you hold at least one of them out to be the authority on the characteristics of light in relative frames?

I didn't.
This is what I said was the authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

It's called experimental evidence.

Oh right, Wikipedia knows all. Where do you think they got General Relativity from, pulled it out of a hat?

[Centra (OP)]

It appears that I may have identified a flaw in Einstein's equations for time dilation.

It only appears that way to you.

And those with a high enough level of comprehension.

[Centra (OP)]

Do you seriously think I accept your pronouncements as valid in any way?

We don't think you accept science...

Whoopee.

[Origin]

It is in no way logical that two objects of different masses should be considered as equally moving away from each other in a vacuum

That is flat out wrong.  Why do you think the mass has anything to do with it?  The voyager space craft is moving at 34,000 mph away from earth, but it is just as valid to say the earth is moving at 34,000 mph away from the voyager space craft. 
My advice is to learn some physics if you find science interesting instead of making up silly stuff that is wrong.

[Origin]

Say we got rid of the mountains moving; need for dark energy unicorns never seen in the lab. The energy balance is smaller so we need to another explanation, that uses less energy. If we combine the equivalency principle, we have the exothermic output of gravity as mass lowers  gravitational potential. This will create an affect that look like anti-gravity such as centrifugal force; rotation, and expansions. There is no extra energy needed; correct fuel amount.

Thanks for the irrelevant silly post.   

[Origin]

Whoopee.

Just another anti-science troll...  [yawn]

[Centra (OP)]

A time dilation calculator shows that objects with relative velocity of 100,000 km/s would supposedly show time dilation of 1.060752 seconds from one observer's point of view, and objects with relative velocity of 200,000 km/s would show 1.342385. So if two objects are moving in the same straight axis in opposite directions from a third object, all of equal mass, at velocity of 100,000 km/s each from that middle object, would the two outer objects show the same times or different times on their clocks? How could they show a time difference of 0.342385 seconds relative to each other and simultaneously show a time difference of .060752 seconds each relative to the middle clock? What would happen if they went back to the middle and compared all three clocks? Also let's specify that the two outer ones traveled 100,000 km from the middle one on the way out and the same on the way back.

 Ignoring acceleration/deceleration, the two outer clocks should be 0.121504 behind the middle clock, but they should also be 0.684770 different from each other, as percentages regardless what times were showing on the clocks, because they were in relative motion of 200,000 km/s both ways, take your pick which would be the fast one and which the slow one, because SR doesn't tell us, you tell me which would be which. Even if acceleration would change the figures, it would still be equal for all three relatively, because they all have equal masses. One accelerating from the other is the same as vice versa, so it would balance out. I want Origin and Bored Chemist to provide an actual answer, instead of something else which will be completely pointless and irrelevant. If you can't answer that, I guess you have a problem, and I doubt if Wikipedia will answer it for you. Maybe Halc would also like to give it a try.