[Bored chemist]

The "mental delusion" is thinking that time dilation is not real.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

The "mental delusion" is thinking that time dilation is not real.

I could not solve the relation of delusion.  Because I tell with arguments. I hope someone will understand. Probably, you did not read the explanation and did not examine the figures 1 and 2:.A clock cannot work faster and slower simultaneously.

When the train don't move the photon is sent to perpendicular way (BE). Methodology requires to use a perforated filter for this. Thus the steps of the photon's motion are like the steps of a stair; so, the total way is H; time dilation will not be realized (Figure 3). Our poor human brain easily connects the points that are beginning and arrival of the photon. This is a mental/logical illusion.

It was indicated the genuine event according to LCS concept at Figure 3. So, the photon will go on absolutely straight line. The beginning point of the photon has traveled because of the speed of the train.

Mental illusion in GR:

At figure 4, we can see the mentality of GR. GR says the path of light will become bent because of acceleration.

However by the same logic, it is indicated that the path of light will incline again without accelerating (a = 0).

In GR the genuine reality is given at right figure. The photon will travel horizontal; but our brain will suppose light's  path as the line SP.

[Bored chemist]

Because I tell with arguments.

You tell us, with badly framed arguments, that time dilation is not real.
But we can measure it, so we know it is real.

We do not need to study your arguments  to find out exactly what mistake you have made.
We know you are mistaken.

Why would I even bother to look at the picture you cite?
I know there's a mistake there somewhere (in the picture or in your understanding) because you say that it shows that time dilation is not real.
Reality shows that it is.
Reality does not make mistakes.

[Kryptid]

A clock cannot work faster and slower simultaneously.

It can in different reference frames.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

A clock cannot work faster and slower simultaneously.

It can in different reference frames.

No. Same train/ same frame.

Einstein consider the light that travels to only one direction (+ x); and its source also travel on the same direction ( +x ).

Whereas he must analze that option light toward +x; its source toward -x or reverse. Einstein had said about just the perpendicular direction ( + y); and he says time dilation is not mentioned because of projection of perpendicular light; that,  when we consider both option for the clock on K' frame this clock also never  workswith  two and very tempos simultaneously.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Because I tell with arguments.

You tell us, with badly framed arguments, that time dilation is not real.
But we can measure it, so we know it is real.

We do not need to study your arguments  to find out exactly what mistake you have made.
We know you are mistaken.

Why would I even bother to look at the picture you cite?
I know there's a mistake there somewhere (in the picture or in your understanding) because you say that it shows that time dilation is not real.
Reality shows that it is.
Reality does not make mistakes.

OK. Your interpretations; thanks. Nobody gets upset

[Bored chemist]

Because I tell with arguments.

You tell us, with badly framed arguments, that time dilation is not real.
But we can measure it, so we know it is real.

We do not need to study your arguments  to find out exactly what mistake you have made.
We know you are mistaken.

Why would I even bother to look at the picture you cite?
I know there's a mistake there somewhere (in the picture or in your understanding) because you say that it shows that time dilation is not real.
Reality shows that it is.
Reality does not make mistakes.

OK. Your interpretations; thanks. Nobody gets upset

It's just silly to write off the observations made during experiments as my "interpretations".

[Kryptid]

No. Same train/ same frame.

Anyone on the train is in the same frame as the train, yes (assuming they are sitting down), so they won't observe any kind of time dilation from the train's movement. The only time that the train's time can be measured as dilated would be by someone in a different frame from the train (such as those people at the train station as the train goes by).

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Figure 4 :

An eye (that is placed at the point P) will see the source (photo-flash) at the other tip of horizontal line not at the point S.

When we look at the sky, we see the target object at its position and date of the photons (*) that they begin their travel (**).

(*) they are the photons that has came to our eyes.

(**) So, LCS concept does not conflict with this reality.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

No. Same train/ same frame.

Anyone on the train is in the same frame as the train, yes (assuming they are sitting down), so they won't observe any kind of time dilation from the train's movement. The only time that the train's time can be measured as dilated would be by someone in a different frame from the train (such as those people at the train station as the train goes by).

Yes you are right in accordance with SR mentality; reference frame K and relative frame K'.

However, a person on reference frame will deal with  two or very different (for other angles) tempos for the object K' again ; this result is contrary  to causality.

[Kryptid]

So, LCS concept does not conflict with this reality.

It does if it doesn't make predictions consistent with the lithium ion experiment. I'm still waiting for you to show those calculations.

However, a person on reference frame will deal with  two or very different (for other angles) tempos for the object K' again ; this result is contrary  to causality.

How do you figure?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Figure 4 :

An eye (that is placed at the point P) will see the source (photo-flash) at the other tip of horizontal line not at the point S.

When we look at the sky, we see the target object at its position and date of the photons (*) that they begin their travel (**).

(*) they are the photons that has came to our eyes.

(**) So, LCS concept does not conflict with this reality.

Thus, we constitute an important inference (like radical postulate) for light kinematics:

Whereever its source is, the emitting point of a photon is marked on outmost frame (outer space or LCS). 

[xersanozgen (OP)]

So, LCS concept does not conflict with this reality.

It does if it doesn't make predictions consistent with the lithium ion experiment. I'm still waiting for you to show those calculations.

which calculations?

However, a person on reference frame will deal with  two or very different (for other angles) tempos for the object K' again ; this result is contrary  to causality.

How do you figure?

My detailed explanation by that link  (Figure 1)

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600

[Bored chemist]

Yes you are right in accordance with SR mentality

And, more importantly, right in reality.

[Kryptid]

My detailed explanation by that link  (Figure 1)

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600

I don't understand your argument. Why do you assert that P₃ must experience an accelerated rate of time? Actually, saying that its time is accelerated is insufficient. No observer will see their own local time as accelerated or dilated. Only a different observer can see their rate of time flow change. So who is it that is observing this change? Is it K'?

If you claim there is some kind of causality violation for relativity's prediction, can you construct a thought experiment that can take advantage of that violation in order to create a paradox? For example, could you think of some kind of mechanism where the very light emitted by a source can be used to trigger a secondary mechanism that will prevent the light source from ever being switched on in the first place?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

My detailed explanation by that link  (Figure 1)

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/6600

1-  I don't understand your argument. Why do you assert that P₃ must experience an accelerated rate of time? Actually, saying that its time is accelerated is insufficient. No observer will see their own local time as accelerated or dilated. Only a different observer can see their rate of time flow change. So who is it that is observing this change? Is it K'?

2- If you claim there is some kind of causality violation for relativity's prediction, can you construct a thought experiment that can take advantage of that violation in order to create a paradox? For example, could you think of some kind of mechanism where the very light emitted by a source can be used to trigger a secondary mechanism that will prevent the light source from ever being switched on in the first place?

1- The photons that are emitted at same moment from a star or any source (e.g. candela) generate a spherical surface that its radius increases by the speed ' c '. P₁, P₂, P₃,... P_i etc. photons are placed on this surface and their time T is same for K reference frame ( I Generally /often forget to note: my K reference frame is LCS; because when we consider sequential external frames of any local frame, we arrive/find  to LCS; and so, I also consider the relative speed of K' as V_u universal value of speed). In accordance with SR, an observer of K' determines different times ( T' of the coordinates x'; y'; z'; T') for the every photon that are placed on spherical surface. But the external observer (we; if we are on LCS) knows all different T'_i values represent a  unique T time.  T' (P₃) > T' (P_i). The clock of K' observer must shows bigger time  for (P₃) and other different times  for P_i simultaneously. In my opinion is a paradox. Yes, we may say "illusion"(wrong perception).

2- When I examine the theory SR according to LCS concept; I found many paradoxes. I shared them in my book (Pseudo science; under protection of mystisism). I may mention some of them:

a- The sur/super paradox of twin  paradox:
 
One (A) of twin moves away by high speed from other (B); In accordans with SR mentality, when they meet again, A perceives B younger.

Now, please suppose that they are on a space shuttle. If B has the speed  v according to A; Also A has the speed v according to  B (reciprocity principle or Newton's action-reaction rule). So, when they meet again, the each one sees the other like same age.

b- Isaac Asimov's example (in his book: Science Guide)

Two rockets have parallel ellips orbits; they go opposite directions and resultant speed is high. On every alignment, they will say to each other "your clock has losed two hours (four,six, eight, .... 2n  hours). whereas both of clocks must show proper time. 

[Kryptid]

In my opinion is a paradox.

No, it's begging the question. Saying that your model predicts a different outcome than relativity is not evidence that relativity is wrong.

When I examine the theory SR according to LCS concept; I found many paradoxes.

This, again, is begging the question. You can't say, "If my model is correct, then relativity has paradoxes. Since I concluded that relativity has paradoxes, my model is correct." You are using your assumptions as evidence for your assumptions. That's circular reasoning.

One (A) of twin moves away by high speed from other (B); In accordans with SR mentality, when they meet again, A perceives B younger.

Only if A is the one accelerating.

Now, please suppose that they are on a space shuttle. If B has the speed  v according to A; Also A has the speed v according to  B (reciprocity principle or Newton's action-reaction rule). So, when they meet again, the each one sees the other like same age.

Perhaps you should watch this:

b- Isaac Asimov's example (in his book: Science Guide)

Two rockets have parallel ellips orbits; they go opposite directions and resultant speed is high. On every alignment, they will say to each other "your clock has losed two hours (four,six, eight, .... 2n  hours). whereas both of clocks must show proper time.

Both of them are accelerating at the same rate (assuming they are in the same orbit travelling in opposite directions), so both experience the same degree of time dilation. They would therefore agree on the amount of time passing each time they met. Unlike constant velocity, acceleration isn't relative. An observer can know whether they are in an accelerating or an inertial frame.

[Bored chemist]

Ignoring experimentally determined fact is not "more clever than Einstein".
It's "less clever than a teenager".

[xersanozgen (OP)]

DEAR READERS OF THIS TOPIC,

Last discussions have potential of confusing. Details may be tiring and boring.

Only/singly one primary factor is sufficient to perceive the flaws of the theory SR (*): Please study to distinguish the nuance about "genuine relativity" and "hypothetical relativity" for the motional relation of a photon and its source . Lake surface analogy and football game analogy help to you for verifing or corroborating. 

(*) The link for the definition of genuine relativity/hypothetical  relativity and  other primary factors ( "Essential factors for light kinematics and special relativity"):

http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0044

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Ignoring experimentally determined fact is not "more clever than Einstein".
It's "less clever than a teenager".

No matter what the forum gods say, please (you; naked scientists) trust your own mental cognitive performance.

Kindly; they will suffice to note objections or new syntheses.