[CrazyScientist (OP)]

And just one more thing for you to reconsider - what if the "dark matter halo" is made of matter that exceeded the speed of light due to angular velocity of galaxy rotation? I don't know if it's true - it's just a thought of mine if you want to, you can calculate it and prove or disprove such idea ...

[Halc]

No, QM, like SR, is an empirical theory and explains neither. Both theories explain WHAT one can expect to observe if certain measurements are done. That’s it. One cannot measure instantaneous cause and effect, so QM does not predict that. It only says that if measurments are made on entangled pairs, however far apart, then those measurements will be found to be correlated when compared at a time when the information can be brought together.

Ok - I agree. However none of this doesn't have any practical significance for my model

You didn’t bring it up in context of your model. You brought it up as evidence against STR, which, for the reason you agreed with, it is not.

Did you respond to it? No …  If you cannot answer to the critique, your ship is sunk

I've tried to response to all your comments. This appears to be your last objection

And yet you still don’t respond to my demonstrations of self inconsistency in your assertions.

In your latest comment you were also pointing out that photons in light clocks are exceeding constant c

I said that one of your animations (the one labeled “3. T-cut”) depicts photons (green balls) moving at different speeds, which violates your premise that they do not.  The animation does not depict STR physics. So your animation is inconsistent with both STR and your premises. The animation is thus fiction. Not sure why you posted the whole set if it doesn't correspond to anything either of our views.

If I missed any of your posts,then please let me know which one it was.

The one about the rings passing through each other or not, bottom of post 90. That was a direct consequence of the width-contraction that you assert, and violates the principle of relativity.

Ok, so here are the diagrams that show the predictions of SRT as for my cenario - distance between particles in each pair is equal to 2su in their inertial frames, but it's contracted for a pair in motion

The new scenario seems to have a set of ‘stationary’ objects and a pair of moving ones, with no acceleration involved. That’s fine. You show the same set of events relative to two different frames. It looks OK.

My model is based on Galilean transformation and predict such results:

The second set is your model, and it seems completely inconstent with the principle of relativity and with frame-invariant light speed.  A light pulse emitted from the left red object at t=0 will be measured by the other red object at t=4 in the upper picture, but at t=2 in the lower picture. That’s a self inconsistency. It can in fact only be measured at one time by the other object.

This is what I mean when I say you’ve not worked out the mathematics. There are inconsistencies that I spot immediately, but you don’t even try to look for them.

And since this experiment wasn't yet conducted, assuming the correctness of prefered result is kinda unscientific approach

There’s no need to run the experiment since it contradicts itself, and an empirical falsification is unnecessary.

Maybe once again I wasn't able to correctly articulate my thoughts. Here are the diagrams according to SRT, after we synchronize distance and simultaneity with one frame

Synchronization is lost in second frame due to Lorentz transformation

This illustrates relativity of simultaneity, yes. Clocks synced relative to one frame may not be synced relative to another.

I don't understand your question. Green marbles in my animations give invalid results - I solve the problem by applying the width contraction due to Doppler shift

That’s fine, but I showed how width contraction violates the principle of relativity. It results in X is true and X is false, a self-contradiction. You never responded to that, bottom of post 90.

Concerning the rotating stick:

The end of the stick cannot get to c even if the material could take the stress.
If you continue to apply torque to the rotating system, the angular momentum of the stick will continue to go up per angular momentum conservation, but only due to the end of the stick increasing in mass. The angular rate (RPM) will not reach a point where the end moves faster than c.

Woow! calm down. We're speaking here about relative velocities of frames in SRT, while you jump to GRT.

Did I?  No mention of gravity ever came up. This is straight special relativity.

I didn't intend to say such things. What is supposedly contracted is the lenght of circumference.

The circumference doesn’t contract since it isn’t an object moving, but rather a path through space taken by the moving object.  The radius remains the same, therefore so does the circumference.

Anyway wouldn't that curve the rod into a spiral if we'll keep to extend the rod and number of rotations will become couple times higher in the center than on the distant end of rod?

No, the angular rate is the same for any part of the object relative to any frame, so no spiral.  So relative to the inertial frame of the axis, the entire thing spins at 100 rads/sec, and relative to the accelerating frame of somebody at the end of the thing, it the entire thing might spin at 300 rads/sec, but nobody sees one part spinning faster than another.

So they'll appear as moving around me despite having the same angular velocity as I do? SRT can't stop to surprise me

That has nothing to do with SRT.
The ground and I seem to spin around each other once per day. This is evidenced by the fact that half the time I’m on the side facing the sun, and the other half the ground is between me and the sun, blocking the light.  You might choose to interpret this as the sun going around Earth as they did before Copernicus came along, but we’ve since learned that it is due to the Earth spinning. Copernicus knew nothing about STR, but are you reverting science back that far now?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

No, QM, like SR, is an empirical theory and explains neither. Both theories explain WHAT one can expect to observe if certain measurements are done. That’s it. One cannot measure instantaneous cause and effect, so QM does not predict that. It only says that if measurments are made on entangled pairs, however far apart, then those measurements will be found to be correlated when compared at a time when the information can be brought together.

Ok - I agree. However none of this doesn't have any practical significance for my model

You didn’t bring it up in context of your model. You brought it up as evidence against STR, which, for the reason you agreed with, it is not.

In fact I still didn't go that far with my explanations, but generally I designed my model to handle both deterministic and probabilistic descriptions of each scenario - but I'll come to this later

Did you respond to it? No …  If you cannot answer to the critique, your ship is sunk

I've tried to response to all your comments. This appears to be your last objection

And yet you still don’t respond to my demonstrations of self inconsistency in your assertions.

Sorry, but I'm too stupid to guess, which particular assertion you're talking about. Please give me a citation and I will respond to it as soon as I can

In your latest comment you were also pointing out that photons in light clocks are exceeding constant c

I said that one of your animations (the one labeled “3. T-cut”) depicts photons (green balls) moving at different speeds, which violates your premise that they do not.  The animation does not depict STR physics. So your animation is inconsistent with both STR and your premises. The animation is thus fiction. Not sure why you posted the whole set if it doesn't correspond to anything either of our views.

And I gave you already the explanation - green marbles show INVALID results. Only after I applied the width contraction, results become valid. Valid result is represented as WHITE marble on the image and animation below:

I hope this will clarify all misunderstandings...

If I missed any of your posts,then please let me know which one it was.

The one about the rings passing through each other or not, bottom of post 90. That was a direct consequence of the width-contraction that you assert, and violates the principle of relativity.

Got it...

Your 'width contraction' suggestion isn't symmetrical.  If I have two identical rings moving towards each other quickly along their mutual axis, in the frame of a given ring, the one ring will be stationary and the other ring will be contracted due to the high speed. The moving one will fit through that stationary one without hitting it. Relative to the frame of the second ring, the first ring will pass through the second. Relative to the frame of the center of mass of the system, the two rings are contracted identically and will collide. That's a different physical result in each of the three abstract reference frames, which violates the principle of relativity. Only one of these scenarios can actually happen, so the laws of physics are different in one frame than in another.

This would be true, if effects like the width contraction would cause definitive distortions of time and space, just like lenght contraction or time dilation do in SRT. However all the effects of relative motion in my model are completely apparent. Relative motion is here in 100% relative and doesn't affect any properties of any inertial frame. Effects of high velocity differential that are visible on images below, don't have any definitive impact on spatial lenght or width in the moving frame:

All spatial distances and angles remain always the same in the inertial frame of world, which exists beyond moving train. Objective reality of inertia doesn't care, if someone is moving in relation to it and perceives distorted image of things that don't move together with him



Letters on the side of moving train will have their proper height in the inertial frame of moving train and if that train will ever stop to move, proper height will be recovered as well in the inertial frame of a stationary bystander

Ok, so here are the diagrams that show the predictions of SRT as for my cenario - distance between particles in each pair is equal to 2su in their inertial frames, but it's contracted for a pair in motion

The new scenario seems to have a set of ‘stationary’ objects and a pair of moving ones, with no acceleration involved. That’s fine. You show the same set of events relative to two different frames. It looks OK.

Yes - I pasted this diagram, to show you, that acording to SRT simultaneity IS being lost for frames in relative motion. Scenario that included acceleration was represented on previous diagrams.

My model is based on Galilean transformation and predict such results:

The second set is your model, and it seems completely inconstent with the principle of relativity and with frame-invariant light speed.  A light pulse emitted from the left red object at t=0 will be measured by the other red object at t=4 in the upper picture, but at t=2 in the lower picture. That’s a self inconsistency. It can in fact only be measured at one time by the other object.

This is what I mean when I say you’ve not worked out the mathematics. There are inconsistencies that I spot immediately, but you don’t even try to look for them.

Sure - I didn't apply there the proper transformation of coordinates. I'll do it soon,to show you how my model deals with that scenario

And since this experiment wasn't yet conducted, assuming the correctness of prefered result is kinda unscientific approach

There’s no need to run the experiment since it contradicts itself, and an empirical falsification is unnecessary.

Why do you jump to conclusions before I'll response to your objections?

Maybe once again I wasn't able to correctly articulate my thoughts. Here are the diagrams according to SRT, after we synchronize distance and simultaneity with one frame

Synchronization is lost in second frame due to Lorentz transformation

This illustrates relativity of simultaneity, yes. Clocks synced relative to one frame may not be synced relative to another.

I don't understand your question. Green marbles in my animations give invalid results - I solve the problem by applying the width contraction due to Doppler shift

That’s fine, but I showed how width contraction violates the principle of relativity. It results in X is true and X is false, a self-contradiction. You never responded to that, bottom of post 90.

I did now. It seems that your conclusions are based on misunderstanding - green marbles give invalid results and valid results are marked by marbles with different colors (e.g. white marble for the blue sphere)

Concerning the rotating stick:

The end of the stick cannot get to c even if the material could take the stress.
If you continue to apply torque to the rotating system, the angular momentum of the stick will continue to go up per angular momentum conservation, but only due to the end of the stick increasing in mass. The angular rate (RPM) will not reach a point where the end moves faster than c.

Woow! calm down. We're speaking here about relative velocities of frames in SRT, while you jump to GRT.

Did I?  No mention of gravity ever came up. This is straight special relativity.

well, there's the increase of mass, so I thought about the mass/energy equivalence - my bad. Anyway, my point is, to ignore the mass for now, as this particular thread is supposed to deal mostly with relative velocities and constant c. To discuss mass in relative motion, I would have to create another thread.

I didn't intend to say such things. What is supposedly contracted is the lenght of circumference.

The circumference doesn’t contract since it isn’t an object moving, but rather a path through space taken by the moving object.  The radius remains the same, therefore so does the circumference.

But what if that path is distributed along the circumference?

Anyway wouldn't that curve the rod into a spiral if we'll keep to extend the rod and number of rotations will become couple times higher in the center than on the distant end of rod?

No, the angular rate is the same for any part of the object relative to any frame, so no spiral.  So relative to the inertial frame of the axis, the entire thing spins at 100 rads/sec, and relative to the accelerating frame of somebody at the end of the thing, it the entire thing might spin at 300 rads/sec, but nobody sees one part spinning faster than another.

So they'll appear as moving around me despite having the same angular velocity as I do? SRT can't stop to surprise me

That has nothing to do with SRT.
The ground and I seem to spin around each other once per day. This is evidenced by the fact that half the time I’m on the side facing the sun, and the other half the ground is between me and the sun, blocking the light.  You might choose to interpret this as the sun going around Earth as they did before Copernicus came along, but we’ve since learned that it is due to the Earth spinning. Copernicus knew nothing about STR, but are you reverting science back that far now?

I think, that the best for our general understanding, if I will depict such scenario with my 3D software and then we'll be able to discuss the details

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Ok, let's go back to the scenario with 2 pairs of objects in relative motion. I have to admit, that it's a quite unique situation, which in my model of relativity, leads to pretty interesting results. But I've made it even more interesting, by adding a third event to the simultaneous emisions at t=0 - my model suppose to work in every case, so I don't intend to go easy on it... Diagrams below show the updated scenario BEFORE my attempts of solving it...

There are 2 main aspects of this scenario, which make it so interesting:
- simultaneity of emissions at t=0 is here synchronized with the time at which 2 objects from each pair are crossing one point in 1D space (in x=2)
- both frames share the same spatial coordinates for one of the simultaneous emissions at t=0, which is also the same point, where at t=0 two objects from each frame, meet in 1D space (x=2)

Because of this, timeline of this scenario includes a cardinal event at t=4, with a double synchronization of simultaneity - light emitted at t=0 is reaching both pairs of objects right at the time,  when they are simultaneously passing next to each other   

Moreover - if we treat both pairs as moving light clocks, that are synchonized with the "shared" light emission (t=0,x=2), both of them suppose to record exactly 2 ticks since the moment of initial emission (t=0) until the cardinal event at t=4. But just as you noticed in your previous comment, light clocks in moving frames seem to count just one tick in the same time interval, in which light clock in the inertial frame of each pair, counts 2 ticks. Shorly, light emitted by one object in a moving pair, is reaching it's copy  at t=2 in the inertial frame of stationary pair, but seems to reach second moving object in it's own pair at t=4 - and because my model maintains symmetry of relative motion for both pairs of objects, such situation is visible in both inertial frames. 

My solution is exactly the same, as in all previous cases - to represent more than one inertial frame on a single diagram, light cones of moving light sources have to be boosted accordingly to their relative velocity:

Below you can see the valid results, which are being predicted by my model of constant c in relative motion:

And just like before, constant c is still fully maintained in every case of two-directional motion. But what makes those results so interesting, is the strange fact, that light emitted at t=0 from a single point of emission, seems to reach the second object from each pair in both inertial frames simultaneously at t=2 - despite the fact, that at this time, both pairs are displaced in space by 1su..

How can it be possible? Quite simply - in my model, constant velocity of c is being maintained, because in every case of light emission, photons are always propagating individually for each observer in his inertial frame. Shortly, photon observed in the inertial frame of one pair of objects, is a different photon, from the one which is being observed in the inertial frame of second pair - even if both of those photons were emitted during the same light emission. And because constant c is immeasurable  in one-directional motion, both photons can be observed simultaneously in respective inertial frames of both pairs...

[Origin]

So you assumed, that I didn't finish primary school?
If in an inertial frame vt is the sum of 2 relative velocities v1 and v2 then:
vt=v1+v2 for relative motion in opposite directions
vt=v1-v2 for relative motion in the same direction

And if you want to know all the details here they are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation

I didn't ask for the Galilean transforms, I asked for your transforms.

I just can't see any way for sensical transforms to by written for your relativity.  I will show you one of my issues with your relativity by using the Einstein light clock.

The light clock consist of a photon or light pulse bouncing between 2 mirrors on the vertical axis.  The clock ticks off 1 second each time a light pulse moves from a lower mirror to the upper mirror and back down to the lower mirror.  If light clock is moving then the light pulse will trace out a saw tooth pattern to an observer in a frame at rest.  Here is a graphic showing this:



Let's look at 3 relatvities
1.  Galilean relativity
2.  Special relativity
3. Your relativity

1.  Galilean transforms allow the direct addition of velocities between reference frames.  The passage of time in the light clocks frame (t') moving frame is the same as the passage of time in the rest frame (t).  In other words t' = t. 
So in the light clocks frame it takes 1 second for the light to travel 3 x 10^8 m.  In the rest frame the light pulse traces out a longer path but the light pulse must still only take 1 second to return to the bottom mirror since t' = t.  The transforms show that it takes 1 second in each frame for the light pulse to move from the lower mirror to the upper and back to the lower because the speed of light in the rest frame is measured as >3 x 10^8 m/s.

2.  In special relativity the speed of light is invariant so in every inertial frame the speed of light is 3 x 10^8 m/sec.  That means that in the rest frame, since the path of the light is longer than in the clocks frame, the light pulse will not reach the bottom mirror.  That's a problem because how can the light pulse in one frame reach the bottom mirror but in the other frame it doesn't?  The solution is that t' does not equal t.  The transforms for switching between reference frames for time is

3.  In your relativity the speed of light is invariant and t' = t.  This means that after 1 second in the moving clocks frame the light pulse will have reached the bottom mirror and it the rest frame the the light pulse will not have reached the bottom mirror.  How can the frames disagree on the distance traveled but agree that 1 second has passed?  What are the transforms that make that possible? 

There are lots of other issues with you idea.  A hypothesis can not be proven but it can be falsified.  In other words evidence and experiments can support your idea but not prove it, on the other hand an experiment can falsify your idea if the experimental results are counter to your idea.
Your hypothesis states that there is no time dilation, however experimentation shows that time dilation is a real effect.  This means your hypotheses has been falsified.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

So you assumed, that I didn't finish primary school?
If in an inertial frame vt is the sum of 2 relative velocities v1 and v2 then:
vt=v1+v2 for relative motion in opposite directions
vt=v1-v2 for relative motion in the same direction

And if you want to know all the details here they are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation

I didn't ask for the Galilean transforms, I asked for your transforms.

I don't have any kind of "my own" transformation - I'm using ONLY Galilean formulas and nothing else. Should I make my own equation with some other velocity addition? Sorry, I can't do that, since it wouldn't be then consistent with my own simulations

I just can't see any way for sensical transforms to by written for your relativity.

Galilean transformation is quite sensical in my opinio - all you do, is to add or subtract distances passed by 2 moving objects - this is why I'm capable to switch between cameras attached to moving frames and see the inertia of each object instantly.

I will show you one of my issues with your relativity by using the Einstein light clock.

The light clock consist of a photon or light pulse bouncing between 2 mirrors on the vertical axis.  The clock ticks off 1 second each time a light pulse moves from a lower mirror to the upper mirror and back down to the lower mirror.  If light clock is moving then the light pulse will trace out a saw tooth pattern to an observer in a frame at rest.  Here is a graphic showing this:



Let's look at 3 relatvities
1.  Galilean relativity
2.  Special relativity
3. Your relativity

1.  Galilean transforms allow the direct addition of velocities between reference frames.  The passage of time in the light clocks frame (t') moving frame is the same as the passage of time in the rest frame (t).  In other words t' = t. 
So in the light clocks frame it takes 1 second for the light to travel 3 x 10^8 m.  In the rest frame the light pulse traces out a longer path but the light pulse must still only take 1 second to return to the bottom mirror since t' = t.  The transforms show that it takes 1 second in each frame for the light pulse to move from the lower mirror to the upper and back to the lower because the speed of light in the rest frame is measured as >3 x 10^8 m/s.

2.  In special relativity the speed of light is invariant so in every inertial frame the speed of light is 3 x 10^8 m/sec.  That means that in the rest frame, since the path of the light is longer than in the clocks frame, the light pulse will not reach the bottom mirror.  That's a problem because how can the light pulse in one frame reach the bottom mirror but in the other frame it doesn't?  The solution is that t' does not equal t.  The transforms for switching between reference frames for time is

3.  In your relativity the speed of light is invariant and t' = t.  This means that after 1 second in the moving clocks frame the light pulse will have reached the bottom mirror and it the rest frame the the light pulse will not have reached the bottom mirror.  How can the frames disagree on the distance traveled but agree that 1 second has passed?  What are the transforms that make that possible? 

There are lots of other issues with you idea.  A hypothesis can not be proven but it can be falsified.  In other words evidence and experiments can support your idea but not prove it, on the other hand an experiment can falsify your idea if the experimental results are counter to your idea.
Your hypothesis states that there is no time dilation, however experimentation shows that time dilation is a real effect.  This means your hypotheses has been falsified.

This is how frames can disagree as for spatial distances observed in moving frames:

I can bet that someone standing next to that railing wouldn't observe any effects from the second image...

And one more thing - I didn't say, that time dilation doesn't exist at all. I'm saying that the idea of time dillation due to relative velocity is completely against the relative and non-definitive nature of motion. Time dilation is a definitive effect and as such can be caused ONLY by a definitvie and characteristic property of a frame (so for example due to high concentration of mass)

[Origin]

I don't have any kind of "my own" transformation - I'm using ONLY Galilean formulas and nothing else.

Then the speed of light isn't invariant in your relativity, the Galilean transforms say so.

Galilean transformation is quite sensical in my opinio - all you do, is to add or subtract distances passed by 2 moving objects - this is why I'm capable to switch between cameras attached to moving frames and see the inertia of each object instantly.

Galilean relativity is easy to work with and it makes intuitive sense, unfortunately it is wrong.  Galilean relativity postulates that t' = t.  This has been experimentally shown to be false.  Galilean relativity is not correct.

I can bet that someone standing next to that railing wouldn't observe any effects from the second image...

I don't know what motion blur on a photograph has to do with the discussion.

And one more thing - I didn't say, that time dilation doesn't exist at all. I'm saying that the idea of time dillation due to relative velocity is completely against the relative and non-definitive nature of motion.

Experimentation disagrees with what you imagine.  Look, you have to go with the data, not what you want to be true.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I don't have any kind of "my own" transformation - I'm using ONLY Galilean formulas and nothing else.

Then the speed of light isn't invariant in your relativity, the Galilean transforms say so.

It is invariant for every inertial frame, but it's covariant for a frame in relative motion - didn't you noticed the boosted light cones on my diagrams?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337285912_Galilean_relativity_and_the_Doppler_effect_are_a_single_phenomenon

But to be more specific, I think, that my concept of width contraction is based on the transverse Doppler's effect and is consistent with Ivanov standng waves, that utilize the Voigt transformations.
http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website3/html/94.Doppler.html
http://www.mysearch.org.uk/websiteX/html/5%20The%20Doppler%20effect.htm
http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website3/html/92.Ivanov.html

Galilean transformation is quite sensical in my opinio - all you do, is to add or subtract distances passed by 2 moving objects - this is why I'm capable to switch between cameras attached to moving frames and see the inertia of each object instantly.

Galilean relativity is easy to work with and it makes intuitive sense, unfortunately it is wrong.  Galilean relativity postulates that t' = t.  This has been experimentally shown to be false.  Galilean relativity is not correct.

It doesn't predict time dilation due to relative velocity - and this is why I consider it as a valid model of relative motion

I can bet that someone standing next to that railing wouldn't observe any effects from the second image...

I don't know what motion blur on a photograph has to do with the discussion.

spatial distances are visibly contracted in the directon perpendicular to motion. Besides the general idea, that moving frames appear distorted due to high relative velocity isn't anything new or controversial. I would consider it as a well known fact

And one more thing - I didn't say, that time dilation doesn't exist at all. I'm saying that the idea of time dillation due to relative velocity is completely against the relative and non-definitive nature of motion.

Experimentation disagrees with what you imagine.  Look, you have to go with the data, not what you want to be true.

http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website1/html/687.LightClock.html
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/3/3/2/index.html
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01097004v3/document
https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/other/uh-ithpii-2003-1.pdf
https://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/the-relativistic-velocity-transformation-and-the-principle-of-absolutesimultaneity-2329-6542-1000125.pdf
https://news.softpedia.com/news/Time-Was-Never-the-4th-Dimension-196801.shtml
http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ijtmp.20190903.03.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/738387/Time-NOT-real-EVERYTHING-happens-same-time-einstein

I can give you much more. Time dilation due to relative velcity iss being generally acepted by the majority, but it doesn't make it fully verified. The general premise of a definitive effect due to relative motion, is in itself logically inconsitent

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I also managed to find this:
http://www.mrelativity.net/LightSpeedEffect/The%20Light%20Speed%20Effect.htm
http://www.mrelativity.net/MRelativity/MillenniumTheory5.htm
http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/SR_Transverse_Doppler_Explained.htm
http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Transverse_Doppler_Simplified_2.htm
What is pretty close to my model. The main difference is here probably the fact, that their model seems to incorporate time dilation, where I use the width contraction. For some reason SRT doesn't make the difference between spatial and temporal dimensions and treats axis of time, just like I treat perpendicular dimension Y.

There's also this:
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-384421/v1_stamped.pdf

And all of this seems to be quite consistend with my model of gravitational fields in relative motion:

Soon I will probably make a second thread, to discuss the details of my model of gravity (or rather "gravitomagnetohydrodynamics"). And then it will be the time for me to introduce you to the actual 4th dimension of space and explain the corelation between fractal scale and the frequency rate of time flow.in frames with a size differential. And then of course I will have to incorporate my gravity model the 5D framework - and voilla:you'll get at last your mystical "quantum gravity"...

[Halc]

It doesn't predict time dilation due to relative velocity - and this is why I consider it as a valid model of relative motion
...
And one more thing - I didn't say, that time dilation doesn't exist at all. I'm saying that the idea of time dillation due to relative velocity is completely against the relative and non-definitive nature of motion.

Strange that this came up in today's non-sequitur:

http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website1/html/687.LightClock.html
http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/3/3/2/index.html
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01097004v3/document
https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/other/uh-ithpii-2003-1.pdf
https://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/the-relativistic-velocity-transformation-and-the-principle-of-absolutesimultaneity-2329-6542-1000125.pdf
https://news.softpedia.com/news/Time-Was-Never-the-4th-Dimension-196801.shtml
http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ijtmp.20190903.03.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/738387/Time-NOT-real-EVERYTHING-happens-same-time-einstein

I can give you much more.

"If I were wrong, it would only take one." - Einstein

[Origin]

Time dilation due to relative velcity iss being generally acepted by the majority, but it doesn't make it fully verified.

That's absurd.  Special relativity is taught in every college in the world and has been for almost 100 years.  So when you say it is 'generally accepted' and 'doesn't make it fully verified', that smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

This is a science forum, so let me state yet again a basic tenet of science.  A hypothesis cannot be proven, experimentation can support a hypothesis but not prove it.  However a hypothesis can falsified if the experimentation result are counter to the hypothesis.  Your hypothesis states that there is no time dilation, however time dilation has been experimentally verified over and over.  This means your hypothesis has been falsified. 

Maybe not for you or couple members of this forum. But if you'd see, what happened on other forums, you wouldn't be so sure anymore - mostly there was a pure hatred directed towards my person.

I strongly suggest that it was not hatred of you or your hypothesis, it was just frustration with your bad faith arguments and your willful ignorance.

[Origin]

Soon I will probably make a second thread, to discuss the details of my model of gravity (or rather "gravitomagnetohydrodynamics").

Since your hypothesis presented in this thread has been falsified it does seem to be time to move on.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Time dilation due to relative velcity iss being generally acepted by the majority, but it doesn't make it fully verified.

That's absurd.  Special relativity is taught in every college in the world and has been for almost 100 years.  So wen you say it is 'generally accepted' and 'doesn't make it fully verified', that smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

I can use my model, that describes time as frequency rate of a cycle to give you my own mathematically valid interpretations of those results.

This is a science forum, so let me state yet again a basic tenet of science.  A hypothesis cannot be proven, experimentation can support a hypothesis but not prove it.  However a hypothesis can falsified if the experimentation result are counter to the hypothesis.  Your hypothesis states that there is no time dilation, however time dilation has been experimentally verified over and over.  This means your hypothesis has been falsified. 

Yeah and I'm still looking for an experiment, which would completely disprove my ideas. I think that the one, which I've proposed before (lenght contraction in a pair of particles) would be able once and for all prove me wrong or right. Everything else is for now just an educated speculation

Maybe not for you or couple members of this forum. But if you'd see, what happened on other forums, you wouldn't be so sure anymore - mostly there was a pure hatred directed towards my person.

I strongly suggest that it was not hatred of you or your hypothesis, it was just frustration with your bad faith arguments and your willful ignorance.

Blah blah blah

[Origin]

Yeah and I'm still looking for an experiment, which would completely disprove my ideas. I think that the one, which I've proposed before (lenght contraction in a pair of particles) would be able once and for all prove me wrong or right. Everything else is for now just an educated speculation

Experimentation on time dilation has already disproved your hypothesis.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Yeah and I'm still looking for an experiment, which would completely disprove my ideas. I think that the one, which I've proposed before (lenght contraction in a pair of particles) would be able once and for all prove me wrong or right. Everything else is for now just an educated speculation

Experimentation on time dilation has already disproved your hypothesis.

Not really:
The Relativistic Velocity Transformation and the Principle of Absolute Simultaneity
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-relativistic-velocity-transformation-and-the-principle-of-absolutesimultaneity-2329-6542-1000125.pdf

"No longer does one have to believe as the LT demands that two clocks can both be running slower than one another at the same time, something that is in fact contradicted by the transverse Doppler experiments carried out with ultracentrifuges [15]. Instead, measurement is totally objective and all observers agree on the ratio of any two clock rates or any other pair of measured quantities. They simply may express their respective measured values in different sets of physical units dependent on their state of relative motion and thus obtain different numerical values for the same quantity. The above considerations suggest that Galileo's Relativity Principle (RP) needs to be amended as follows [16]: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems but the units in which they are expressed can and do vary in a systematic manner from one rest frame to another. Each observer finds that his proper clocks run at the standard rate, for example, but his timing results always differ from those obtained with proper clocks in a different rest frame by a fixed ratio. A simple way to express this relationship between proper clocks in different rest frames is to assume that their respective units of time are not the same. IV.No longer does one have to believe as the LT demands that two clocks can both be running slower than one another at the same time, something that is in fact contradicted by the transverse Doppler experiments carried out with ultracentrifuges [15]. Instead, measurement is totally objective and all observers agree on the ratio of any two clock rates or any other pair of measured quantities. They simply may express their respective measured values in different sets of physical units dependent on their state of relative motion and thus obtain different numerical values for the same quantity. The above considerations suggest that Galileo's Relativity Principle (RP) needs to be amended as follows [16]: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems but the units in which they are expressed can and do vary in a systematic manner from one rest frame to another. Each observer finds that his proper clocks run at the standard rate, for example, but his timing results always differ from those obtained with proper clocks in a different rest frame by a fixed ratio. A simple way to express this relationship between proper clocks in different rest frames is to assume that their respective units of time are not the same."

[Origin]

Yeah and I'm still looking for an experiment, which would completely disprove my ideas. I think that the one, which I've proposed before (lenght contraction in a pair of particles) would be able once and for all prove me wrong or right. Everything else is for now just an educated speculation

Experimentation on time dilation has already disproved your hypothesis.

Not really:
The Relativistic Velocity Transformation and the Principle of Absolute Simultaneity
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-relativistic-velocity-transformation-and-the-principle-of-absolutesimultaneity-2329-6542-1000125.pdf

"No longer does one have to believe as the LT demands that two clocks can both be running slower than one another at the same time, something that is in fact contradicted by the transverse Doppler experiments carried out with ultracentrifuges [15]. Instead, measurement is totally objective and all observers agree on the ratio of any two clock rates or any other pair of measured quantities. They simply may express their respective measured values in different sets of physical units dependent on their state of relative motion and thus obtain different numerical values for the same quantity. The above considerations suggest that Galileo's Relativity Principle (RP) needs to be amended as follows [16]: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems but the units in which they are expressed can and do vary in a systematic manner from one rest frame to another. Each observer finds that his proper clocks run at the standard rate, for example, but his timing results always differ from those obtained with proper clocks in a different rest frame by a fixed ratio. A simple way to express this relationship between proper clocks in different rest frames is to assume that their respective units of time are not the same. IV.No longer does one have to believe as the LT demands that two clocks can both be running slower than one another at the same time, something that is in fact contradicted by the transverse Doppler experiments carried out with ultracentrifuges [15]. Instead, measurement is totally objective and all observers agree on the ratio of any two clock rates or any other pair of measured quantities. They simply may express their respective measured values in different sets of physical units dependent on their state of relative motion and thus obtain different numerical values for the same quantity. The above considerations suggest that Galileo's Relativity Principle (RP) needs to be amended as follows [16]: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems but the units in which they are expressed can and do vary in a systematic manner from one rest frame to another. Each observer finds that his proper clocks run at the standard rate, for example, but his timing results always differ from those obtained with proper clocks in a different rest frame by a fixed ratio. A simple way to express this relationship between proper clocks in different rest frames is to assume that their respective units of time are not the same."

Sorry, but an arm waving crank talking about about 'absolute simultaneity' is not good evidence for your idea.  You do realize that time dilation was to be taken into account in the timing for the GPS system, don't you?  Every time you use something like Google maps for driving directions you are demonstrating support for time dilation and refuting your relativity.

This is from the paper you cited, "Since it is well established experimentally that the rate of clocks vary with their state of motion", in other words time dilation.  Even this crank paper accepts time dilation, which refutes your hypothesis.

Denying time dilation requires you to pretend the experimental evidence supporting time dilation doesn't exist.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Yeah and I'm still looking for an experiment, which would completely disprove my ideas. I think that the one, which I've proposed before (lenght contraction in a pair of particles) would be able once and for all prove me wrong or right. Everything else is for now just an educated speculation

Experimentation on time dilation has already disproved your hypothesis.

Not really:
The Relativistic Velocity Transformation and the Principle of Absolute Simultaneity
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-relativistic-velocity-transformation-and-the-principle-of-absolutesimultaneity-2329-6542-1000125.pdf

"No longer does one have to believe as the LT demands that two clocks can both be running slower than one another at the same time, something that is in fact contradicted by the transverse Doppler experiments carried out with ultracentrifuges [15]. Instead, measurement is totally objective and all observers agree on the ratio of any two clock rates or any other pair of measured quantities. They simply may express their respective measured values in different sets of physical units dependent on their state of relative motion and thus obtain different numerical values for the same quantity. The above considerations suggest that Galileo's Relativity Principle (RP) needs to be amended as follows [16]: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems but the units in which they are expressed can and do vary in a systematic manner from one rest frame to another. Each observer finds that his proper clocks run at the standard rate, for example, but his timing results always differ from those obtained with proper clocks in a different rest frame by a fixed ratio. A simple way to express this relationship between proper clocks in different rest frames is to assume that their respective units of time are not the same. IV.No longer does one have to believe as the LT demands that two clocks can both be running slower than one another at the same time, something that is in fact contradicted by the transverse Doppler experiments carried out with ultracentrifuges [15]. Instead, measurement is totally objective and all observers agree on the ratio of any two clock rates or any other pair of measured quantities. They simply may express their respective measured values in different sets of physical units dependent on their state of relative motion and thus obtain different numerical values for the same quantity. The above considerations suggest that Galileo's Relativity Principle (RP) needs to be amended as follows [16]: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems but the units in which they are expressed can and do vary in a systematic manner from one rest frame to another. Each observer finds that his proper clocks run at the standard rate, for example, but his timing results always differ from those obtained with proper clocks in a different rest frame by a fixed ratio. A simple way to express this relationship between proper clocks in different rest frames is to assume that their respective units of time are not the same."

Sorry, but an arm waving crank talking about about 'absolute simultaneity' is not good evidence for your idea.  You do realize that time dilation was to be taken into account in the timing for the GPS system, don't you?  Every time you use something like Google maps for driving directions you are demonstrating support for time dilation and refuting your relativity.

This is from the paper you cited, "Since it is well established experimentally that the rate of clocks vary with their state of motion", in other words time dilation.  Even this crank paper accepts time dilation, which refutes your hypothesis.

Denying time dilation requires you to pretend the experimental evidence supporting time dilation doesn't exist.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309004071_Contradiction_between_FitzGerald-Lorentz_Length_Contraction_and_Time_Dilation_A_GPS-Compatible_Lorentz_Transformation

Contradiction between FitzGerald-Lorentz Length Contraction and Time Dilation: A GPS-Compatible Lorentz Transformation


Recent work has shown that the underlying assumptions of the Global Positioning System (GPS) are incompatible with a number of conclusions of conventional relativity theory, including Fitzgerald-Lorentz length contraction (FLC) and the supposed ambiguity in the relative rates of clocks in motion. The challenge is therefore to amend relativity theory so as to bring it into full consistency with the experience of the GPS methodology. This goal must be accomplished while at the same time avoiding conflict with other predictions of relativity theory that have received ample experimental confirmation over the years. It is shown that this can be achieved by eliminating an undeclared assumption in Einstein’s derivation of the Lorentz transformation (LT) and replacing it with the GPS axiom of the strict proportionality of clock rates in different rest frames. The standard relativistic velocity transformation still retains its validity thereby. However, the relationships between respective measured values of observers in relative motion for the same quantity are determined in the revised theory with the aid of a simple scaling procedure in each case

I can give you more examples, if you want. Obviously the idea of time dilation due to relative velocity is still a subject of serious discussion among physicists.

Besides, as I said before, I have as well my own explanation of this phenomenon, which is based on the simple fact, that in the difference to linear velocity, angular motion has a specific and definitive frequency of revolutions:

In my model of relativity, rate of the time flow is defined by frequencies of cycles. Our clocks are synchronized with the frequency of Earth's rotation. And as you can probably guess, the lower is the frequency of this cycle, the slower is the time flow in a particular frame. If you distribute a specific number of cycles over the globe along different latitudes, you'll see that the cycle, which is distributed along the equator has the highest wavelenght - since this is where surface of Earth is passing the longest distance during each rotation - but because the difference of surface velocities, frequency of 24h/day cycle remains the same over the entire planet. Of course, the same mechanism can be used for satellites, which are orbiting the Earth with their own specific frequency of orbital cycles. 

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I've made a simple animation, which should explain, what I've ment by "distribution of cycles along different latitudes". Here 24 cycles synchronized with Earth's rotation are distributed along 3 different latitudes - compare the wavelenght for cycles, which are distributed along the equator and along the polar cap...

Of course, this won't work in the case of linear motion, since there's no definitive frequency associated with the distance, which is being passed by particular frames - here distances add to each other according to the standard formula of velocity addition:

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I just discovered something quite interesting (at least for me). I've used my 3D graphics software, to make a diagram of a scenario with a synchronization of 3 frames in relative motion - 1 stationary one (yellow sphere),1 moving at 0,25c (red sphere) and 1 moving at 0,5c (blue sphere). Each frame includes an identical copy of a clock, which counts 4 full cycles in 8tu  (time units). Below are all cuts of the diagram and a 3D view:

Y-cut


X-cut


t-cut


3D

As you might guess, in my model of relativity all 3 clocks will remain synchronized with each other as long, as their relative veocities won't change. However I wanted to see, what would happen, if we would move the clocks to different frames, after they were synchronized. Would they still count 4 cycles in 8tu or not? On the left side of the image below, I've compared the measurements of the clocks, after they were moved to a different frame (colors might be slightly misleading, but generally waveform with the greatest wavelenght is for the clock, that moves at 0,5c, while the shortest wavelenght is for the stationary clock)

And now the best part... I've compared those results with the ones, which are being predicted by SRT - and it seems that my model predicted results, which are in 100% consistent with the time dilation from SRT (I've used multiple stationary clocks - red lines - for a better frame of reference).

I don't know, if it's something extraordinary or if it's something rather obvious, but I was quite surprised by those predictions. It's almost like SRT without the lenght contraction... Interesting...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I still need to explain the major difference between my model of time dilation and the one from SRT. In my model of relativity cycles are distributed over the distance, which is being passed by the frame in a given period of time, while velocity of motion defines the observed frequency of that cycle. Looking at the animation from my previous post, it can be seen, that while 24 "hours" are distributed over a longer distance at the equator than at the pole, rotational velocity is higher at lower latitudes, so in the end frequency of 24h/day gets equalized for the entire planet. This is exactly why all clocks on Earth remain synchronized - no matter if you measure the time in Congo or in the Neumayer station at S Pole.

In Einstin's SRT time is flowing at different rates only because the differences of relative velocities - the faster someone is moving in relation to someone else, the slower time flows for him. So, if we use once more the Earth's rotation as an example, we will be able to conclude, that time suppose to flow slower for people living near the equator, than for the people living in the polar regions - and this is exactly, what is being predicted by SRT.

But the question is: did someone ever measured the differences of time flow rates at different geographical latitudes?

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/126919/does-time-move-slower-at-the-equator
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_clocks_run_at_diffrenet_speeds_at_difrrent_latitudes_as_according_to_STR
https://www.quora.com/Does-time-run-slower-on-the-equator-than-at-the-poles
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7utll8/does_the_equator_experience_time_dilation/
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/12/04/when-einstein-was-wrong/

And this is where Einstein's model of constant c in relative motion is unable to give a valid answer without the help of General Relativity. According to official sources:

"Alex Harvey and Engelbert Schucking pointed out that Einstein made this error by failing to take into account an effect of general relativity positing that clocks more deeply embedded in a gravitational field would run slower. Clocks run slightly faster at the equator compared to the poles because the earth’s rotation produces a slight bulge at the equator. However, the earth is also rotating faster at the equator. These two effects compensate for each other exactly, causing clocks to actually run at the same rate in both locations."

There is a effect from things whizzing in circles because of the earth's rotation, and although it's quite small, of order 1.4E-11, it's well within the precision of modern atomic clocks.
Unfortunately you can't detect it by comparing a clock at the equator to a clock at one at the poles because there's an effect of exactly the same size but opposite sign due to the fact that the earth is distorted into an Oblate spheroid due to centrifugal force and the equator is 22 km further from the centre of the earth than the poles. That is, the poles are lower in the earth's gravitational potential and so are subject to Gravitational time dilation. (It's not a coincidence that this happens - in the frame rotating with the earth, centrifugal force is equivalent to gravity according to the Equivalence principle and has the same effect on clocks. And the earth, being only semi-solid, sloshes around until the combined effective gravitational+centrifugal potential is even over the surface.)

If we were to assume that spacetime is flat (and so use special relativity), we would, indeed, conclude that because points on the equator move faster than points nearer to the poles, there is a time dilation effect. So if twins are born on the north pole, one of them spends all his summers on the equator and the other stays at the north pole, when they reunite, the vacationing twin will be younger. Special relativity would predict a time dilation factor of about 1.2 x 10-12, which is tiny but still measurable, in principle. Over 50 years or so, this accumulates to a difference of about 2 ms.

However, spacetime is not flat and Earth is not spherical. The effective gravitational potential at the poles is less than the potential at the equator. So there is another time dilation effect caused by the difference in gravity. And this effect would tend to do the opposite of the special relativistic effect: the twin at the north pole would be younger. Now keep in mind that we can measure the difference in time between two atomic clocks, one on the surface of Earth and another just less than 1 meter above it. The polar and equatorial radii differ by about 20 km, which is 20,000 times larger than 1 meter. Surely this means we are doomed to never be able to synchronize clocks across the globe.

So to fully solve the problem, we need to appeal to general relativity. Now it's not really possible to separate the two effects and say this much is due to the relative velocity and this much is due to gravity. It's just all part of the same metric. (In the case of weak gravity, however, we can make an approximate separation of the two effects, but this is only an approximation and it cannot be done in general.)

What's the punchline? The effects exactly cancel. That is, the time dilation factor is exactly 1 for all observers on the surface of Earth. (In fact, as this paper explains, it's possible to use atomic clocks synchronized in one point to map the geoid, as any difference in synchronization must have been due to a geoid anomaly, since all clocks on the geoid should be synchronized.)

Great! so my model of relativity DOES agree with the mainstream science, by predicting the constant synchronization of all clocks everywhere on Earth - only my explanation doesn't require additional values or theories, like the difference in the magnitude of gravity. But since we're at this subject, it might be a good idea to see, if the gravity is REALLY stronger at the equator, than at the poles, just as they say it is...

UH-OH! It seems, that  although physicists are pretty good in repeating generally approved statements, they don't care too much about the ACTUAL state of affairs... So, in the end it appears, that my model of relativity visibly wins this battle...