[Origin]

I can give you more examples, if you want.

No thanks, there is more than enough pseudoscience already.

Obviously the idea of time dilation due to relative velocity is still a subject of serious discussion among physicists.

Obviously this statement is a lie.  You know that every real university in the world teaches time dilation due to relative velocity.  There is no disagreement to this except from loonies.

In my model of relativity, rate of the time flow is defined by frequencies of cycles.

You don't have a model.  You have a conjecture or a wag. 

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.

Why do insist on making up silly stuff instead of spending some time to learn actual physics?

[Origin]

So, in the end it appears, that my model of relativity visibly wins this battle..

Especially when you ignore all of the problems with your idea that have been pointed out to you.  Your willful ignorance knows no bounds.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I can give you more examples, if you want.

No thanks, there is more than enough pseudoscience already.

Obviously the idea of time dilation due to relative velocity is still a subject of serious discussion among physicists.

Obviously this statement is a lie.  You know that every real university in the world teaches time dilation due to relative velocity.  There is no disagreement to this except from loonies.

In my model of relativity, rate of the time flow is defined by frequencies of cycles.

You don't have a model.  You have a conjecture or a wag. 

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.

Why do insist on making up silly stuff instead of spending some time to learn actual physics?

So, in the end it appears, that my model of relativity visibly wins this battle..
Especially when you ignore all of the problems with your idea that have been pointed out to you.  Your willful ignorance knows no bounds.

You see, problem is that I've spoken before with couple actual physicists, so I have quite solid foundations as for my statements. I spoke as well with many people of your kind - those who try to compensate the lack of actual arguments with personal attacks. To be honest, I don't see any sense in our further discussion, since your input doesn't have any value to me anyway. Sadly those, who are obviously smarter than you, prefer to remain silent...   I don't know, if you're educated in physics or not - nor do I care, since you seem unable to comprehend the most basic mechanics of my model.

I prefer to rely on opinions of people with actual scientific career - those, who you consider as loonies. Here's for example the author of that paper, which I've linked before in my response to you

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rj-Buenker

This loonie works in a belgian university and has 185 publications on his account - so I don't see no reason to not rely on his statements. And who exactly are you? How many peer-reviewed papers did you published? Well, that's why opinion of that loonie has 1000x more value to me, than your baseless comments. Why should I waste my time on searching for peer-reviewed sources, to back-up my claims, if you will dismiss them anyway, due to their inconsistency with your static worldview? Bye bye...

[Origin]

You see, problem is that I've spoken before with couple actual physicists, so I have quite solid foundations as for my statements.

Talking to a couple of physicist does not give a solid foundation.  I took physics courses from physics professors, big deal. 

I spoke as well with many people of your kind - those who try to compensate the lack of actual arguments with personal attacks.

We are not attacking you, we are attacking your idea.  When you tell a lie, stating that fact is not an attack.  Pointing out your willful ignorance is not an attack against you, it is just the way it is.

I prefer to rely on opinions of people with actual scientific career - those, who you consider as loonies. Here's for example the author of that paper, which I've linked before in my response to you

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rj-Buenker

This loonie works in a belgian university and has 185 publications on his account - so I don't see no reason to not rely on his statements. And who exactly are you? How many peer-reviewed papers did you published? Well, that's why opinion of that loonie has 1000x more value to me, than your baseless comments. Why should I waste my time on searching for peer-reviewed sources, to back-up my claims, if you will dismiss them anyway, due to their inconsistency with your static worldview? Bye bye...

Yes, this guy, Bob, is a anti-relativity loon.  If you prefer the opinions of people with an actual scientific career that sounds great!  All the professional physicists teaching in all the universities in the world say you are wrong.

To be honest, I don't see any sense in our further discussion, since your input doesn't have any value to me anyway.

Clearly you don't think anybody's input has had any value.  Several posters have pointed out problems with you idea and you just ignore the problems (that's wilfull ignorance).
Bye-bye.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Ok, I think that it's the time for me to deal (or at least try to) with another famous experiment, which can't be omitted in any discussion about relativity - especially when it comes to the supposed time dilation due to relative velocity. This experiment is of course known as Hafele–Keating experiment. Results of this particular experiment, are considered as one of the main evidences of velocity time dilation from SRT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.

Below is a simple animation, which represent the general idea of this experiment:

As you might guessed, I will now try to explain the results using my model of relativity. Of course I will be using made-up values, as my goal is to discuss only the general idea and not to precisely calculate the exact results, which were observed in real life - in order to do it I would have to include such values, like Earth's rotational velocity, exact velocities of the planes and the exact distances passed by each of them, while using nano-seconds as the units of measured time. No... I will strip this experiment to it's bones and make it as simplistic, as it can possibly be. Instead of nano-seconds and kilometers, I will be using units of time (tu) and space (su), which are derived from the speed of light (c=1su/1tu) - but just for fun I will also describe the rotational cycle of Earth using hours (24h/1d). Generally I will do everything, to make it easy to comprehend.

Animations below represent my simplified version of this experiment. Each waveform represents the measurements of one clock. Waveform in the middle represents measurements observed on the Earth's surface - in this scenario, one rotational cycle of the planet takes 24h (red waveform) and during this time, clock on the Earth's surface is passing the distance equal to 5su - so it's velocity equals to 5su/24h. Both planes are here moving with velocities equal to 2su/24h in relation to the Earth's surface - plane which moves in the direction of Earth's rotation is then passing 7su/24h, while the one which moves in opposite direction moves through 3su/24h

I've added as well a second set of measurements (white waveforms), which are defined by the constant c instead of 24h/1d cycle - I did so, because I wanted to use the interactive Minkowski diagram in order to see, if my predictions are somehow consistent with the SRT. In this set of measurements, clock on the surface is passing through 5su in 10tu (so it's velocity is equal to 0,5c) and during this time it measures 5 full cycles (ticks). Of course, similarly to the previous set of values, planes are moving at relative velocities equal to 0,2c in relation to the surface - so one of them is passing 7su in 10tu and the second one 3su in 10 tu.

Since what matters in this case, are just the relative velocities, I'm also ignoring the direction of plane's motion - on the animation below all frames are moving in the same direction. This way it will be easier for me to compare the predicted results with each other...

As you might notice, on the animation above all 3 clocks are synchronized with each other - all of them measure the same number of cycles (5 ticks and 24h) despite moving through different distances during the same time period (24h or 10tu). But now the real fun begins. I want you to compare the wavelenghts of white waveforms - especially the one on top and the one in the middle:

What makes it so important, is the fact that just like in one of my previous scenarios, those results are in 100% consistent with the time dilation predicted by SRT. This might be pretty troublesome for those, who would like to completely dismiss my model of relativity - by rejecting those results, they will also have to reject the SRT

But this is also where I've encountered a serious problem - and I'm asking for help anyone, who knows how to solve it. In shortcut, I simply have no idea, how to use the interactive diagram to calculate the time dilation for plane that moves at 0,3c. You see, in this particular scenario there's no synchronization of clocks in their own inertial frames - units of time and space just as the number of cycles (ticks) are initially synchronized with the clock that moves together with Earth's surface at 0,5c (red worldline). You might say, that clocks are synchronized with the inertial frame of Sun or some other observer, who remains suspended in a fixed point of interplanetary space. Problem is, that units of time and space will be always extended for the moving frames, than for the inertial frame of stationary observer located in the interplanetary space. It doesn't matter too much in the case of plane that moves at 0,7c - I can boost the coordinates to it's frame and compare the units acquired in such way with those, which are synchronized with the clock on Earth's surface (which is synchronized with the stationary frame of interplanetary space) - just like I did on the diagram above. However this won't work for the plane moving at 0,3c - units acquired by boosting the coordinates to it's frame will be always longer, than units synchronized with the clock on Earth's surface, while they should be shorter, as it moves 0,2c slower than the surface... I really have no idea how to solve this problem... Plz help!

But anyway, since in the case of a plane that moves at 0,7c, predictions of my model are in 100% consistent with the time dilation from SRT, I can probably assume, that they are as well valid for the frame of slower plane...

And here comes the most crucial part - in order to predict the time dilation in my model of relativity, all we have to do, is to compare the frequencies of the moving clocks with the one on the ground, using it's time measurements as the reference. In shortcut, we need to see how many hours and ticks, as they are being measured by moving clocks, will "fit" in 24h or 5 ticks measured on the Earth's surface. Below you can see the predicted results:

If we count the number of measured cycles for each clock, we will learn, that for every 24h measured on the Earth's surface, clock onboard a plane that moves at 7su/24h (or 0,7c) will measure only 17,3h (so around 6,7h less), while clock onboard the plane which moves at 3su/24h (or 0,3c) will in this time measure as much, as 40h (so around 16h more).

As for the second set of measurements: for each 5 ticks measured on the surface, clock onboard the faster plane will measure around 3,57 ticks, while clock onboard the slower plane will measure around 8,31 ticks...

And that's it for now, when it comes to the famous Hafele–Keating experiment.

[Origin]

In your relativity light has a speed of c and is invariant, but additionally an object with mass can go the speed of light or even faster.  So that means of I could be in a space ship going the speed of light and as I fly past you, you could fire a laser beam so that the ship and  front of the beam and my ship are side by side.  So you would say that the laser beam and my ship could cross the light years side by side.  However in my ship I would see the laser beam move away from me at c!
So how is that possible?  How can the light beam and the space ship have no relative velocity in one frame and have relative velocity of c in another frame?
So there is this result and the result with the 'Einstein's clock' scenario that give absurd results.  Your relativity doesn't work.  You seem reasonably intelligent so I am sure that you see the issue.  But for some reason you will ignore these facts and continue to tout your fantasy as a 'scientific breakthrough'.  Living the fantasy is more important than reality?  I just don't get you guys (relativity deniers).  I do see that arguing with someone who disregards logic is a waste of time though....

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

In your relativity light has a speed of c and is invariant, but additionally an object with mass can go the speed of light or even faster.  So that means of I could be in a space ship going the speed of light and as I fly past you, you could fire a laser beam so that the ship and  front of the beam and my ship are side by side.  So you would say that the laser beam and my ship could cross the light years side by side.  However in my ship I would see the laser beam move away from me at c!
So how is that possible?  How can the light beam and the space ship have no relative velocity in one frame and have relative velocity of c in another frame?
So there is this result and the result with the 'Einstein's clock' scenario that give absurd results.  Your relativity doesn't work.  You seem reasonably intelligent so I am sure that you see the issue.  But for some reason you will ignore these facts and continue to tout your fantasy as a 'scientific breakthrough'.  Living the fantasy is more important than reality?  I just don't get you guys (relativity deniers).  I do see that arguing with someone who disregards logic is a waste of time though....

Ok, now you speak science - and I like it First of all, in my model relative motion at ftl velocities (or at 100%c) is possible only if 2 (or more) frames are moving in opposite directions, so the situation, in which you are able to observe a laser beam, which in my frame is moving next to your space ship, is impossible. You would be able to observe that laser beam only if your spaceship would be incoming towards it. And second of all, to shoot at a spaceship, that is incoming towards me at ftl velocity, first I would have to see it coming - but since it moves faster than light, I won't be able to see it before it won't pass next to me - and then I would observe it's afterimages in reversed order.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

There's also the option of me shooting a laser beam at your ship, while it moves away from me at ftl velocity (or at 100% of c) - but then this laser won't never hit your ship and in your frame you won't be able to observe it. You can even say, that in such case this laser won't even exist for you...

[Origin]

Ok, now you speak science - and I like it  First of all, in my model relative motion at ftl velocities (or at 100%c) is possible only if 2 (or more) frames are moving in opposite directions

That is irrelevant since either of the frames can consider themselves at rest.   

So let's take the same situation except instead of the spaceship moving at c it is moving at c - 1 km/s.  You still have the same nonsensical outcome.  In one frame the ship and the light beam are traveling at almost exactly the same speed and in another frame the light is moving away from the ship at c.  Your relativity still doesn't work.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Ok, now you speak science - and I like it  First of all, in my model relative motion at ftl velocities (or at 100%c) is possible only if 2 (or more) frames are moving in opposite directions

That is irrelevant since either of the frames can consider themselves at rest.   

So let's take the same situation except instead of the spaceship moving at c it is moving at c - 1 km/s.  You still have the same nonsensical outcome.  In one frame the ship and the light beam are traveling at almost exactly the same speed and in another frame the light is moving away from the ship at c.  Your relativity still doesn't work.

"In one frame the ship and the light beam are traveling at almost exactly the same speed and in another frame the light is moving away from the ship at c." - is it strange, that I consider this as something absolutely logical?

As long as the beam won't reach your ship constancy of c won't be violated. You would have to decelerate your space ship.

Question is what would happen in such case. I might have couple ideas, but it is probably too early for me to speak about such things as acceleration/deceleration in relative motion...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I don't know where do you see the problem. LHC is a real-life representation of my interpretation of relativity: two protons accelerated in opposite directions to 0,999999991c are colliding head-on

0→v1→c←v2←0

In standard relaivity their relative velocity in respect to each other is almost reaching 2c - and somehow reality doesn't break down. Yeah I know your standard explanations - lenght contraction - but this is nothing more than unproven experimentally interpretation of the actual phenomenon...

But since we're speaking about relativity and the LHC - I've found something interesting:
https://lhc-closer.es/taking_a_closer_look_at_lhc/0.relativity

2.- Head-on collisions.

Mass m1 and m2 in a head-on collision (ɵ = 180º).
s = (m1·c2)2 + (m2 c2)2 + 2(E1·E2 + 2·p1c·p2c)
Take into account that Ei >> mi·c2 and Ei ~ pi·c , we have:
s ~ 2(E1·E2·+ E1·E2) à s ~ 4E1·E2

√s ~ 2√(E1·E2)

For the special case of identicle particles of equal momentum, colliding head-on (like the case of LHC), the COM is at rest in the lab, and:

s = (m·c2)2 + (m c2)2 + 2(E·E + 2·pc·pc)

s = 2(m·c2)2 + 2·E2 + 2(p·c)2 às = 4·E2

√s = 2·E

So, in the case of p-p collision at LHC, with 7 TeV per proton:

√s = 14 TeV

That is the energy available for new particle production in LHC collision.

And what is especially interesting for me, is this fragment:
So, in the case of p-p collision at LHC, with 7 TeV per proton: √s = 14 TeV

Although i'm not a professional mathematician, it looks to me, like a result of pretty standard non-relativistic energy addition - something what is being done in Galilean model of relative motion... Hmm..

[Origin]

"In one frame the ship and the light beam are traveling at almost exactly the same speed and in another frame the light is moving away from the ship at c." - is it strange, that I consider this as something absolutely logical?

Yes, I find it beyond strange.  Since everyone's clocks, in your relativity, can be synchronized and all tick at the same rate that will lead to absudities.  So using the scenario above let's say the laser light is aimed at a photo cell 4 ly distant and it will record the elapsed time when the laser light to reaches it.  From the frame of the ship after about 2 years the ship will have traveled 2 ly and since the speed of light is c relative to the ship the light will be 2 ly ahead of the ship so it will reach the photo cell in 2 years, so it will record 2 years elapsed time.  From the frame that the laser was fired the light will take 4 years to reach the the photo cell so it will mark 4 years.  So there will be 2 different times that the light arrives.  This is not strange to you?

Edited for clarification.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

"In one frame the ship and the light beam are traveling at almost exactly the same speed and in another frame the light is moving away from the ship at c." - is it strange, that I consider this as something absolutely logical?

Yes, I find it beyond strange.  Since everyone's clocks, in your relativity, can be synchronized and all tick at the same rate that will lead to absudities.  So using the scenario above let's say the laser light is aimed at a photo cell 4 ly distant and it will record the elapsed time when the laser light to reaches it.  From the frame of the ship after about 2 years the ship will have traveled 2 ly and since the speed of light is c relative to the ship the light will be 2 ly ahead of the ship so it will reach the photo cell in 2 years, so it will record 2 years elapsed time.  From the frame that the laser was fired the light will take 4 years to reach the the photo cell so it will mark 4 years.  So there will be 2 different times that the light arrives.  This is not strange to you?

Edited for clarification.

You forget to take into account the fact, that speed of light is immeasurable in one-directional motion, so the results observed from the perspective of light source are invalid. What matters, is the time at which light reaches the moving sensor (space ship), as it is observed in the frame of that sensor. And since speed of light is constant, laser beam emitted (e.g) 2ls away from your space ship, will reach you always after 2s. If you want to measure the speed of light from the perspective of light source, you have to do it in a two-directional motion - so you would have to reflect that laser beam back to it's source with a mirror mounted on your space ship. And as I proved couple times already, in my model constant c is always maintained in each case of two-directional motion.

[Origin]

You forget to take into account the fact, that speed of light is immeasurable in one-directional motion, so the results observed from the perspective of light source are invalid.

Not true.  I don't actually have to measure the speed of light in my scenario.

Here is the scenario again.  Notice at no point do I state we are measuring the speed of light, I am simply using your postulates that the speed of light is invariant, t' = t and L' = L.

Since everyone's clocks, in your relativity, can be synchronized and all tick at the same rate that will lead to absudities.  So using the scenario above let's say the laser light is aimed at a photo cell 4 ly distant and it will record the elapsed time when the laser light to reaches it.  From the frame of the ship after about 2 years the ship will have traveled 2 ly and since the speed of light is c relative to the ship the light will be 2 ly ahead of the ship so it will reach the photo cell in 2 years, so it will record 2 years elapsed time.  From the frame that the laser was fired the light will take 4 years to reach the the photo cell so it will mark 4 years.  So there will be 2 different times that the light arrives.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

You forget to take into account the fact, that speed of light is immeasurable in one-directional motion, so the results observed from the perspective of light source are invalid.

Not true.  I don't actually have to measure the speed of light in my scenario.

Here is the scenario again.  Notice at no point do I state we are measuring the speed of light, I am simply using your postulates that the speed of light is invariant, t' = t and L' = L.

Since everyone's clocks, in your relativity, can be synchronized and all tick at the same rate that will lead to absudities.  So using the scenario above let's say the laser light is aimed at a photo cell 4 ly distant and it will record the elapsed time when the laser light to reaches it.  From the frame of the ship after about 2 years the ship will have traveled 2 ly and since the speed of light is c relative to the ship the light will be 2 ly ahead of the ship so it will reach the photo cell in 2 years, so it will record 2 years elapsed time.  From the frame that the laser was fired the light will take 4 years to reach the the photo cell so it will mark 4 years.  So there will be 2 different times that the light arrives.

And in what way the source of light might learn at which time the laser reached the photo cell on a moving space ship? It would need to get that information from that ship - and we end once again with a two-directional motion path of light...

[Origin]

And in what way the source of light might learn at which time the laser reached the photo cell on a moving space ship? It would need to get that information from that ship - and we end once again with a two-directional motion path of light...

Nope.  The scenario is that the laser is at rest relative to the ship.  So let's assume the laser is on earth and it is aimed at a photoreceptor 4 ly away in the same frame as the earth.  As the ship flies by the earth the laser is fired at the target.

So.....

From the frame of the ship after about 2 years the ship will have traveled 2 ly and since the speed of light is c relative to the ship the light will be 2 ly ahead of the ship so it will reach the photo cell in 2 years, so it will record 2 years elapsed time.  From the frame that the laser was fired the light will take 4 years to reach the the photo cell so it will mark 4 years.  So there will be 2 different times that the light arrives.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I will make a diagram

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

And in what way the source of light might learn at which time the laser reached the photo cell on a moving space ship? It would need to get that information from that ship - and we end once again with a two-directional motion path of light...

Nope.  The scenario is that the laser is at rest relative to the ship.  So let's assume the laser is on earth and it is aimed at a photoreceptor 4 ly away in the same frame as the earth.  As the ship flies by the earth the laser is fired at the target.

So.....

From the frame of the ship after about 2 years the ship will have traveled 2 ly and since the speed of light is c relative to the ship the light will be 2 ly ahead of the ship so it will reach the photo cell in 2 years, so it will record 2 years elapsed time.  From the frame that the laser was fired the light will take 4 years to reach the the photo cell so it will mark 4 years.  So there will be 2 different times that the light arrives.

But wait a second - from your description it seems, that this ship is moving at 100%c. Am I right?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Ok, so this is what I figured out from your desccription - I just made the velocity of space ship little less than c. Is this correct?

[Origin]

But wait a second - from your description it seems, that this ship is moving at 100%c. Am I right?

No, as I stated earlier the ship just under the speed of light, specifically c - 1km/s.