1. "Why would you develop a theory that no one uses?"
Drivel. Theories are initially about gaining knowledge. If someone finds a practical use for it later, then it's a bonus!
2. "The Twin Paradox was not a scientific hypothesis. It was an invention of fans of exotic ideas, like the UFO nuts."
Drivel. From the Wikipedia article:
- "Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been numerous explanations of this paradox...Max von Laue argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two separate inertial frames, one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame switch is the reason for the aging difference...Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration"
This proves that scientists were involved in the problem right from the start. A search of .edu websites shows it is still discussed by scientists. Hence your assertion is drivel.
3. "Time does not dilate during motion. Time dilation refers to the relative measurement of in each frame, with speed of the moving frame entering into calculation to account for spontaneity of reception of optical singals."
Drivel. From the following article:
- "In the theory of relativity, time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses."
I draw your attention to the verb "moving". Here's a little lesson in the English language - the verb ends in "ing" which means it is a present participle. This signifies a continuous action that hasn't stopped, e.g. the dilation occurs during the actual motion. There is no additional requirement for the observers to stop for the effect to occur, although they can do this if they wish. You will also see an animated diagram on the right of the webpage, which shows the dilation happening during the motion. See also:
- "The time difference was measured by direct clock comparison at the ground before and after the flight, as well as during the flight by laser pulses of 0.1 ns duration. Those signals were sent to the plane, reflected and again received at the ground station. The time difference already increased during the flight."
You will see from the above paragraph that they also measured the time difference "already increased during the flight" eg while the plane was still flying in the air, as well as after it landed. So your statement that time does not dilate during motion is drivel. Your additional claim that time dilation can be derived from "spontaneity of reception of optical singals" is also drivel. From:
- "An accurate clock at rest with respect to one observer may be measured to tick at a different rate when compared to a second observer's own equally accurate clocks."
- "dt is the time interval between two co-local events (i.e. happening at the same place) for an observer in some inertial frame (e.g. ticks on his clock), this is known as the proper time, dt' is the time interval between those same events, as measured by another observer, inertially moving with velocity v with respect to the former observer"
In other words, time dilation is determined by an observer directly comparing his clock as he moves relative to two clocks in another frame. It also says that time dilation is about differences in clock rates. The description does not mention "spontaneity of reception of optical singals". There is also a derivation of time dilation using a light clock:
- "Consider a simple clock consisting of two mirrors A and B, between which a light pulse is bouncing"
This demonstrates how time dilation keeps the speed of light constant between two systems when a light beam (in one system) is perpendicular to the relative motion. For relativistic simultaneity, see:
- "Since the events are placed along the axis of train movement, their time coordinates become projected to different time coordinates in the moving train's inertial frame"
This describes light pulses travelling along the axis of motion. Relativistic simultaneity helps to keep the speed of light constant for relatively moving observers measuring such pulses. Time dilation deals with light pulses perpendicular to the moving system's motion, so the two processes are different. The above statement also shows that relativistic simultaneity is about clock readings, while time dilation is more about clock rates. Also, your use of "spontaneity" is not scientific. The accepted terminology is "simultaneity" or "synchronisation". Could you explain where you got "spontaneity" from?
4. "Here, you screwed up big time since you cannot prove that Lorentz Contraction could be invoked when the speed of earth is too low with respect to c."
This is drivel because:
- "they concluded that the measured velocity was "probably less than one-sixth" of the expected velocity of the Earth's motion in orbit and "certainly less than one-fourth."
- "In 1930, Georg Joos conducted an experiment using an automated interferometer with 21-meter-long arms....... Displacements of 1/1000 of a fringe could be measured on the photographic plates. No periodic fringe displacements were found, placing an upper limit to the aether wind of 1.5 km/s... the expected values are related to the relative speed between Earth and Sun of 30 km/s. With respect to the speed of the solar system around the galactic center of about 220 km/s, or the speed of the solar system relative to the CMB rest frame of about 368 km/s, the null results of those experiments are even more obvious"
- "As of 2009, optical and microwave resonator experiments have improved this limit to dc/c approx 10exp(−17) ."
In other words, the Lorentz contraction is happening for any experimentally achievable velocity, no matter how small, and corresponding to velocities much smaller than the earth's velocity relative to other celestial bodies. The only other way such null-results could be achieved is through Newtonian-Galilean Relativity (non-Lorentz contraction in combination with Newtonian light emission), but this theory is incorrect because of De-Sitter's Double Star experiment:
Then there's the additional problem of what relativity theory could explain the results of time dilation experiments, if you've done away with Lorentz contraction. So your assertion is drivel.
5. "That is the worst part of your inability to talk or come across as a scientist, but rather, egoistic maniac, want to be better, without knowing why or how,"
Drivel. If I believe I've achieved something, why shouldn't I say it? Do I criticise your achievements? Or do you think I should ask your permission to say something about myself? Maybe you could articulate to other people here why this is making you feel so angry and hysterical?
6. "You screwed up again by claiming that "all processes are time dilated, and this includes the emission of photons." Since there is no time dilation beside the relative optical simultaneity which you kept confusing for true time dilation."
Oh really? Well, your previous statements, such as "time does not dilate during motion" proves you don't know what you're talking about. But if you're so sure I'm wrong, maybe you could recalculate my examples based on "relative optical simultaneity"?
7. Conclusion: Now it's your turn to explain yourself. What you need to do is provide evidence to back up your ridiculous assertions. These are:
- "Time does not dilate during motion".
- " Time dilation refers to the relative measurement of in each frame, with speed of the moving frame entering into calculation to account for spontaneity of reception of optical singals."
- "you cannot prove that Lorentz Contraction could be invoked when the speed of earth is too low with respect to c."
Give the web addresses, and cut and paste the necessary paragraphs so we can all read them. You should also describe what theory of relativity you actually believe in, and how this theory explains time dilation experiments and the Michelson-Morley experiment. Also, you should recalculate my examples based on your "relative optical simultaneity". Also, explain why this subject makes you feel so angry and hysterical, and what you hope to achieve from your ridiculous assertions. Maybe if you think your interpretation of relativity is better than others, you could write a book about it, or a research paper? But what you need to understand is that I don't have the time to give physics lessons to troublemakers over the internet.