Strange Claims About Relativistic Time Split From A Alternative Theories Thread

[xinhangshen]

A-wal, let's have a look at your statements:

 

"Meaningless statement. What do you mean by "at the same time"? Events that happen at the same time in one frame of reference won't happen at the same time in other frames of reference."

First, I did not said "at the same time" on my statement because it would make people confused. In my statement, I said, the angle of the rotating arm of a clock will be the same observed in both reference frames. This is a direct conclusion from Lorentz Transformation because the plane on which the arm is rotating is perpendicular to the motion of the reference frame and won't experience any relativistic length contraction.

 

Regarding simultaneity, there are two definitions: one is for events with the same relativistic time, and the other is for events with the same clock time. For example, there two clocks: one is stationary and the other is moving at a constant speed. If they are synchronized in the stationary frame according to both relativistic time and clock time. Here are the two events in the stationary frame: (x_s, t, T) and (x_m, t, T), where x_s, x_m are the x-coordinate of the stationary clock and the moving clock respectively, t is relativistic time and T is clock time shown on both clocks. Now the two events are transformed to the frame of the moving clock with Lorentz Transformation to become (x_s', t_s', T) and (x_m', t_m', T). Although t_s' and t_m' are no longer the same. that is, the two events are no longer simultaneous according to relativistic time, the two events still have the same clock time, that is, they are still simultaneous according to clock time. In the real world, we only have clocks to measure time. Therefore, the simultaneity based on clock time is the real simultaneity.

 

The rest of your statements are just assertions without any convincing meaning.

 

CraigD, it seems that you are talking about a different situation. What I said is that the clock has an arm rotating in a plane perpendicular to the motion of the reference frame, that is, the angle of the rotating arm measured relative to its initial position is always perpendicular to the motion of the frame.

Edited July 27, 2016 by xinhangshen

[A-wal]

First, I did not said "at the same time" on my statement because it would make people confused. In my statement, I said, the angle of the rotating arm of a clock will be the same observed in both reference frames.

You didn't specify a time so I assume you're under the false impression that different inertial frames can be compared without specifying because you think that they share a common time. They don't.

 

This is a direct conclusion from Lorentz Transformation because the plane on which the arm is rotating is perpendicular to the motion of the reference frame and won't experience any relativistic length contraction.

Length contraction is a separate effect to time dilation and again, you need to specify how you're comparing frames or it's a meaningless statement.

 

Regarding simultaneity, there are two definitions: one is for events with the same relativistic time, and the other is for events with the same clock time.

There's no distinction between the two. Relativity describes clock time.

 

For example, there two clocks: one is stationary and the other is moving at a constant speed.

Neither frame is stationary or in motion. You can view either as stationary and from that frame of reference it's the other that's in motion.

 

If they are synchronized in the stationary frame according to both relativistic time and clock time.

If you want to synchronise them according to relativistic time from one frame of reference time then they immediate go out of synch again because they run at different rates. Your applying concepts and rules that don't apply to relativity and trying to use them to say 'ha, see, it doesn't work'.

 

Here are the two events in the stationary frame: (x_s, t, T) and (x_m, t, T), where x_s, x_m are the x-coordinate of the stationary clock and the moving clock respectively, t is relativistic time and T is clock time shown on both clocks. Now the two events are transformed to the frame of the moving clock with Lorentz Transformation to become (x_s', t_s', T) and (x_m', t_m', T). Although t_s' and t_m' are no longer the same. that is, the two events are no longer simultaneous according to relativistic time, the two events still have the same clock time, that is, they are still simultaneous according to clock time.

No they don't have the same clock time, relativity describes clock time.

 

In the real world, we only have clocks to measure time. Therefore, the simultaneity based on clock time is the real simultaneity.

The real world doesn't follow your backward delusions, it actually makes sense.

 

The rest of your statements are just assertions without any convincing meaning.

The rest of my assertions are based on the fact that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames.

 

You don't even know the basics yet think you in a position to comment on its validity and you use circular reasoning. Your view is inconsistent with a constant speed of light and therefore not worth discussing. Toodles.

[xinhangshen]

A-wal, please use step-by-step logical reasoning in your refutation, not simple assertions which do not help your debate.

 

It seems that you really don't understand relativity yet as you say "You didn't specify a time so I assume you're under the false impression that different inertial frames can be compared without specifying because you think that they share a common time. They don't." In relativity, there is only 4 dimensional spacetime. When you make a transformation in special relativity, it is a 4-d transformation in which there is no extra time for you to specify. Your thinking is still traditional thinking such as "at some time, the coordinates are transformed from one system to another system." That is a wrong way for relativity.

Edited July 27, 2016 by xinhangshen

[A-wal]

You're being very silly. I'm saying you can't use a specific coordinate independent time to compare frames. You have to specify which frame of reference you're using.

 

You have demonstrated fundamental flaws in your understanding of relativity, the model you're trying trying to refute. You think you know better than a model that you don't even understand.

 

You didn't even understand that there is no absolute motion. If two objects are in motion relative to each other the you can specify a coordinate system in which either or both are moving.

 

That's Galilean relativity. Special relativity includes a constant speed of light. Not only do you not understand special relativity but you don't even know the basic model that it's based on.

 

Go away, admit to yourself that you've made a mistake, realise that all inertial motion is relative, get to grips with that and then think about how a constant speed of light forces observers to measure different distances in time and space exactly as relativity describes and if one accelerates into the other's frame then shortened distances traveled but that object from the perspective of the frame it's moving into mean that it has covered less distance and was covering the equivalent distance in less time, meaning that it's clock will be behind an inertial observer's watch, as in the twin 'paradox' (not a paradox at all). Or just go away.

[xinhangshen]

You're being very silly. I'm saying you can't use a specific coordinate independent time to compare frames. You have to specify which frame of reference you're using.

 

You have demonstrated fundamental flaws in your understanding of relativity, the model you're trying trying to refute. You think you know better than a model that you don't even understand.

 

You didn't even understand that there is no absolute motion. If two objects are in motion relative to each other the you can specify a coordinate system in which either or both are moving.

 

That's Galilean relativity. Special relativity includes a constant speed of light. Not only do you not understand special relativity but you don't even know the basic model that it's based on.

 

Go away, admit to yourself that you've made a mistake, realise that all inertial motion is relative, get to grips with that and then think about how a constant speed of light forces observers to measure different distances in time and space exactly as relativity describes and if one accelerates into the other's frame then shortened distances traveled but that object from the perspective of the frame it's moving into mean that it has covered less distance and was covering the equivalent distance in less time, meaning that it's clock will be behind an inertial observer's watch, as in the twin 'paradox' (not a paradox at all). Or just go away.

Please behave politely!

[A-wal]

I'm getting tired of reading unfounded crap from people who who don't understand the sr model but mistake their lack of compression for a flawed model, it's annoying.

 

If the speed of light is subject to velocity addition as you claimed then a universal measurement of distance in time and space would make sense but there's evidence that it's constant. If you really want to show that you're right it's completely pointless to argue about what relativity describes because everything in it is based on a constant speed for light (all energy). What you'd need to do to justify your position is show that the experiments that measure the speed of light are flawed. I don't think they are are though because I think that would have been discovered by now and it actually makes more sense for energy to have a constant speed once you get used to it. Why should something without mass be subject to the same velocity addition system that governs massive objects? Energy and mass are equivalent but not equal, E=mc^2. That's a big clue, it might even be enough to derive sr on it's own.

[xinhangshen]

I'm getting tired of reading unfounded crap from people who who don't understand the sr model but mistake their lack of compression for a flawed model, it's annoying.

 

If the speed of light is subject to velocity addition as you claimed then a universal measurement of distance in time and space would make sense but there's evidence that it's constant. If you really want to show that you're right it's completely pointless to argue about what relativity describes because everything in it is based on a constant speed for light (all energy). What you'd need to do to justify your position is show that the experiments that measure the speed of light are flawed. I don't think they are are though because I think that would have been discovered by now and it actually makes more sense for energy to have a constant speed once you get used to it. Why should something without mass be subject to the same velocity addition system that governs massive objects? Energy and mass are equivalent but not equal, E=mc^2. That's a big clue, it might even be enough to derive sr on it's own.

A-wal, you just ignored all the previous discussions and didn't know what exactly I presented. Please read the previous posts and the press release at http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/ngpi-tst030116.php and the paper published on Physics Essays: http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1440-19-xinhang-shen-challenge-to-the-special-theory-of-relativity.html before denying anything you don't know.

[A-wal]

I see no point in reviewing something that could only work with a variable speed of light when there's apparently solid evidence that it isn't variable. Show that the speed of light isn't constant or you're just playing a make believe what if game.

[xinhangshen]

Because relativity is wrong logically, all modern physics based on relativistic spacetime are wrong. This represents the start of a new era for new physics theories.

[A-wal]

:rofl:

[CraigD]

CraigD, it seems that you are talking about a different situation. What I said is that the clock has an arm rotating in a plane perpendicular to the motion of the reference frame, that is, the angle of the rotating arm measured relative to its initial position is always perpendicular to the motion of the frame.

Oops! Seizing on the easiest calculation, I ignored your

There is a clock using the angle of an arm rotating in the plane perpendicular to the motion of an inertial reference frame.

In this case

1. This angle will be the same observed in both reference frames (i.e. the frame of the clock and the moving frame).

is true.

 

2. This angle represents the clock time, for example, 30 degrees (i.e. 1 o'clock).

Though a given, so by definition true, is poorly defined, because it doesn’t specify for an observer in what inertial frame the clocks arm represents “clock time”. Since you believe that time dilation doesn’t affect clocks (which I’d say is the same as believing it doesn’t occur), I can see why you’d not feel it necessary to specify an observer, but when working within the framework of SR, such statement must.

 

3. Thus, the clock time is the same observed in both reference frames.

Here, you make an unsupported claim, based, I think, on your belief that time dilation doesn’t occur.

 

According to SR, both the moving and stationary observer will agree (after accounting for the time required for the light by which they see it) on the angle of the moving clock’s arm. The stationary observer, however, will not agree with the moving observer about how much time a given angle represents. For example, if the clock is moving at 0.8 c, and the observer on it finds that the arm moving 30^o represents 60 minutes of elapsed time, the stationary observer will find that it represents [math]60 \sqrt{1-0.8^2}[/math] = 36 minutes. It the stationary observer has an identical clock, she will find it has moved 18^o.

 

These steps don’t give a practical, do-able experiment, because we’re not able to make big, fragile things like clocks with arms and human beings have relative velocities that are large fractions of the speed of light, or see things like the arms on clocks at great distances. The experiment is do-able if, instead of using clocks with arms watched by human beings, we use small objects that can function as clocks, such as muons. From low-speed observations and theoretical predictions, we know that about half of a collection of muons decay into other particles in 0.00000156 seconds. From this, we can predict the number of muons that would be detected at a given distance from where they form in the upper atmosphere, assuming time dilation as given by time dilation occurs, and assuming it does not. The observed data agrees with the prediction assuming time dilation occurs. This hyperphysics page has a good illustration of this experiment, a version of which was first done in 1941 (see hyperphysic’s “Some History of the Muon Experiment”)

[xinhangshen]

CraigD, as I mentioned that the angle of an rotating arm is the same observed in both inertial reference frames. That is, I have specified the observers. The conclusions of them is the same. You must be aware that these observations are for the same event, not for same relativistic time, though the relativistic times of the two observers' frames are different when they are making the observations. I have repeated many time in my previous posts that relativistic time is not available in real world and all we have only physical clocks. If the readings of physical clocks are the same, then events are physically simultaneous.

 

You don't need to use real physical phenomena to support relativity because the problem of relativity is a logical error. Many so called relativistic effects are just the results of unknown causes which need new theories to explain.

 

Please read my previous posts and you will see the problem of relativity.

[CraigD]

CraigD, as I mentioned that the angle of an rotating arm is the same observed in both inertial reference frames. That is, I have specified the observers. The conclusions of them is the same.

I agree that both the stationary and the co-moving observer will agree about the angle of the arm of the moving clock. Special Relativity doesn’t predict that they do not.

 

SR predicts that the two observers, or a third observer with any velocity relative to the two, will not agree that the arm of a clock at rest relative to one of them has the same angle as the arm of an identical clock at rest relative to the other, but that each will observe the arm of the other’s clock to have an angle less than theirs by the factor [math]\sqrt{1-\left( \frac{v}{c}) \right)^2}[/math].

 

You appear to disagree with this prediction, xinhangshen.

 

I have repeated many time in my previous posts that relativistic time is not available in real world and all we have only physical clocks.

You are the only person, xinhangshen, that I’ve heard make this claim, other than as tentative speculation (I’ve heard it many times from students in introductory science classes). Do you know of, and can you provide links or references to, any similar claims by credible (or even discredited) professional scientists or science enthusiasts?

 

You appear to be claiming not that there are 2 kinds of physical processes that can be used to measure time – that is “clocks” – but only one kind, “physical clocks”. You use the phrase “relativistic clock”, but appear to claim that such a clock “is not available in the real world”, but could exist only by making a clock that adjusted some reliable periodic phenomena, such as the transition of electrons’ orbits used by atomic clocks, or the swinging of pendulums in pendulum clocks, by the factors given by SR. Is this an accurate statement of what you believe?

 

You don't need to use real physical phenomena to support relativity because the problem of relativity is a logical error.

I strongly disagree. A scientific theory must make predictions, and those predictions must agree with observations of real physical phenomena, for a theory to sensibly be considered true.

 

The most fundamental predictions made by SR, are its postulates: 1) that the laws of physics are the same of all systems in uniform motion (also know as Galilean relativity); 2) that the vacuum speed of light is the same for all observers. These predictions are testable, and have been experimentally tested and found to be true. If they had not been, SR would not be considered true.

 

Many so called relativistic effects are just the results of unknown causes which need new theories to explain.

This view, and theories explaining it, are older than SR, and, I think, can be usefully broken down into 2 parts according to the 2 postulates of SR. Those that deny the 1st postulate can be described as “things going fast get somehow shaken making things like clocks do things like run slow”; while those that deny the 2nd are usually theories of a luminiferous aether that is “dragged” by large bodies such as the Earth so that experiments performed on Earth like the Michelson-Morley experiment falsely support the 2nd postulate.

 

Do you subscribe to such views and theories, xinhangshen? Can you briefly sketch why you believe the postulates of SR are wrong?

 

Fortunately, because we have much more precise and accurate clocks, and the ability to move them much faster, than 100 years ago, experimental test of SR are easier to perform now. Unfortunately, the people with such clocks and high-speed machines are mostly well-educated scientists and engineers who accept SR as true based on results of the more difficult experiments of the past, so have little interest in further supporting it experimentally. I often think it the public would be done a great educational service if effort and money were spent on a straight-forward experiments showing that the postulates of SR and its best know theoretical predictions, such as time dilation, are true. Some such results, can be found, in existing recorded data, so need only the attention of a good researcher to present them. I wouldn’t be surprised is this has already been done, and welcome any links/references anyone can provide.

[xinhangshen]

CraigD, it seems that you did not read my previous posts which have all the answers of your questions. OK, let me just repeat them here.

 

Regarding the reference of the point I hold (i.e. clock time is not relativistic time), I can clearly tell you that it is my own discovery as I believe. That's why I wrote and published a paper titled "Challenge to the special theory of relativity" on Physics Essays - an international journal dedicated to fundamental questions in physics. This publication is another proof that this discovery is mine.

 

Now I would like to show you why clock time is not relativistic time. Actually there are three definitions of time existing in our physics: the first one is defined by the status of a physical process (called physical time or clock time here) such as the angle of a rotating arm, the height of a burning candlestick, the shape of the moon, etc, the second definition is defined by Galilean Transformation called (Galilean time here) and the last one is defined by Lorentz Transformation (called relativistic time here). We should never assume that they are the same thing before we have verified. The mistake of Einstein is to assume that clock time is relativistic time.

 

Both classic mechanics and special relativity are physics theories that are supposed able to describe all physical processes.

 

In classical mechanics, the status of a physical process can be calculated by the product of Galilean time and Galilean progressing rate of the process. Since Galilean progressing rate is invariant of inertial reference frames (i.e. Galilean Transformation), the status divided by the Galilean progressing rate becomes Galilean time. That is, a clock can be used to measure Galilean time. Therefore, clock time is Galilean time, absolute and universal.

 

In special relativity, the status of a physical process can be calculated by the product of relativistic time and relativistic progressing rate of the process. Since relativistic progressing rate is no longer invariant of inertial reference frames (i.e. no longer invariant of Lorentz Transformation) but experiences Transverse Doppler Effect after Lorentz Transformation, there is no way to separate relativistic time from the product of relativistic time and relativistic progressing rate. That is, clock time can never be calibrated to be relativistic time. Therefore, relativistic time is not our physical time but an artificial time introduced just for producing an artificial constant speed of light.

 

On the other hand, the status of a physical process such as the height of a burning candlestick is invariant of Lorentz Transformation because space dimensions perpendicular to the motion of the frame won't experience any relativistic effects. That is, clock time is the same observed in all inertial reference frames. If all clocks are set the same initial time and frequency in one inertial reference frame, then they are the same observed in all inertial reference frames. Therefore, even in the framework of special relativity, clock time i.e. our physical time is still absolute and universal. This has been perfectly demonstrated by the clocks on GPS satellites and ground which are synchronized not only relative to the ground frame, but also to each satellite frame.

 

Your claim that the clock of an observer will have a different time from the moving clock is based on Einstein's wrong assumption that clock time is relativistic time. Then use the properties of relativistic time to predict the behavior of clock time. This is wrong. Let show you here. Before any comparison of the clock readings, we first set the two clocks (one is moving and the other is stationary) with the same reading and same frequency observed in the stationary frame. That is, they are synchronized according to both relativistic time and clock time in the stationary frame. Now let's see how the two events (xs, t, T) and (xm, t, T) be transformed from the stationary frame to the frame of the moving clock, where xs and xm are the x-coordinates of the stationary clock and moving clock respectively, t is the relativistic time, and T is the clock time (e.g. represented by the height if the clocks are burning candlesticks). After Lorentz Transformation, the two events become (xs', ts', T) and (xm', tm', T). We know relativistic times: ts' and tm', are no longer the same, but the clock time remain the same (because they are represented by the height of candlestick, perpendicular to the motion of the frame, won't experience any relativistic length contraction). That is, these two events are still synchronized according to clock time observed on the moving frame too. The problem of your claim is that you have never synchronized the clocks and simply assume that are identical relative to their own frame and use the property of relativistic time to predict their behavior. This is wrong.

 

Regarding logical errors, if a theory is logically wrong, then no matter how many co-incidents people can find to support it, it is still wrong. For example, people claim that the weight plus the height equals the IQ, which can have many cases to hold the equation, but it is still wrong.  That a theory does not have any logical error is an essential criterion for the theory to be a useful theory. Einstein's relativity has failed this very criterion. Therefore, it is just meaningless to talk about its predictions.

 

Due to that fatal error, all the supporting predictions of relativity are either null effects or wrongly interpreted as discussed on my paper and its references (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297527784_Challenge_to_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity). There are many experimental results disproving relativity, but the mainstream physicists just ignore them.

 

Edited July 29, 2016 by xinhangshen

[A-wal]

In classical mechanics, the status of a physical process can be calculated by the product of Galilean time and Galilean progressing rate of the process. Since Galilean progressing rate is invariant of inertial reference frames (i.e. Galilean Transformation), the status divided by the Galilean progressing rate becomes Galilean time. That is, a clock can be used to measure Galilean time. Therefore, clock time is Galilean time, absolute and universal.

Since Galilean progressing rate is invariant of inertial reference frames it can NOT be thought of as clock time, as clock time HAS to depend on inertial reference frames because of the consistency of the speed of light!

 

In special relativity, the status of a physical process can be calculated by the product of relativistic time and relativistic progressing rate of the process. Since relativistic progressing rate is no longer invariant of inertial reference frames (i.e. no longer invariant of Lorentz Transformation) but experiences Transverse Doppler Effect after Lorentz Transformation, there is no way to separate relativistic time from the product of relativistic time and relativistic progressing rate. That is, clock time can never be calibrated to be relativistic time. Therefore, relativistic time is not our physical time but an artificial time introduced just for producing an artificial constant speed of light.

Clock's time are naturally calibrated to show relativistic time precisely because of the consistency of the speed of light. The constant speed of light is what lead to special relativity, not the other way round.

 

On the other hand, the status of a physical process such as the height of a burning candlestick is invariant of Lorentz Transformation because space dimensions perpendicular to the motion of the frame won't experience any relativistic effects. That is, clock time is the same observed in all inertial reference frames. If all clocks are set the same initial time and frequency in one inertial reference frame, then they are the same observed in all inertial reference frames. Therefore, even in the framework of special relativity, clock time i.e. our physical time is still absolute and universal. This has been perfectly demonstrated by the clocks on GPS satellites and ground which are synchronized not only relative to the ground frame, but also to each satellite frame.

The GPS satellites are calibrated in accordance with special relativity. The spacial dimension perpendicular to the motion of the of the frame won't experience length contraction but the clock times observed in different frames of reference are subject to time dilation and will be different, therefore clock time is NOT absolute and universal.

 

Your claim that the clock of an observer will have a different time from the moving clock is based on Einstein's wrong assumption that clock time is relativistic time. Then use the properties of relativistic time to predict the behavior of clock time. This is wrong. Let show you here. Before any comparison of the clock readings, we first set the two clocks (one is moving and the other is stationary) with the same reading and same frequency observed in the stationary frame. That is, they are synchronized according to both relativistic time and clock time in the stationary frame. Now let's see how the two events (xs, t, T) and (xm, t, T) be transformed from the stationary frame to the frame of the moving clock, where xs and xm are the x-coordinates of the stationary clock and moving clock respectively, t is the relativistic time, and T is the clock time (e.g. represented by the height if the clocks are burning candlesticks). After Lorentz Transformation, the two events become (xs', ts', T) and (xm', tm', T). We know relativistic times: ts' and tm', are no longer the same, but the clock time remain the same (because they are represented by the height of candlestick, perpendicular to the motion of the frame, won't experience any relativistic length contraction). That is, these two events are still synchronized according to clock time observed on the moving frame too. The problem of your claim is that you have never synchronized the clocks and simply assume that are identical relative to their own frame and use the property of relativistic time to predict their behavior. This is wrong.

Your arguments are nothing but false statements. The times shown on the clocks ARE subject to Lorentz transformations whether you like it or not. This is supported by observations, your position is supported by nothing and is easily falsified by the fact that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames.

 

Regarding logical errors, if a theory is logically wrong, then no matter how many co-incidents people can find to support it, it is still wrong. For example, people claim that the weight plus the height equals the IQ, which can have many cases to hold the equation, but it is still wrong.  That a theory does not have any logical error is an essential criterion for the theory to be a useful theory. Einstein's relativity has failed this very criterion. Therefore, it is just meaningless to talk about its predictions.

The only problems you're having with the theory are due to your own logical fallacies, it has nothing to do with the validity of the theory. The theory is sound but your reasoning and understanding of the event it describes aren't.

 

Due to that fatal error, all the supporting predictions of relativity are either null effects or wrongly interpreted as discussed on my paper and its references (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297527784_Challenge_to_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity). There are many experimental results disproving relativity, but the mainstream physicists just ignore them.

Like what?

 

The most fundamental predictions made by SR, are its postulates: 1) that the laws of physics are the same of all systems in uniform motion (also know as Galilean relativity); 2) that the vacuum speed of light is the same for all observers. These predictions are testable, and have been experimentally tested and found to be true. If they had not been, SR would not be considered true.

[xinhangshen]

A-wal, if you don't know how to reason, please keep quiet, thanks!

[A-wal]

You the one who just posted a response that didn't even attempt to provide any reasoning, you should at least try. And you're making bassless assumptions without any reasoning behind them as well.

 

In classical mechanics, the status of a physical process can be calculated by the product of Galilean time and Galilean progressing rate of the process. Since Galilean progressing rate is invariant of inertial reference frames (i.e. Galilean Transformation), the status divided by the Galilean progressing rate becomes Galilean time. That is, a clock can be used to measure Galilean time. Therefore, clock time is Galilean time, absolute and universal.

Since Galilean progressing rate is invariant of inertial reference frames and can clocks can be used to measure it, clock time is Galilean time? That assumes that clocks measure Galilean time as opposed to relativistic time and we know that they don't because of experiments and because the speed of light is the same in every inertial frame. Bassless assumption 1! Where's the reasoning???

 

In special relativity, the status of a physical process can be calculated by the product of relativistic time and relativistic progressing rate of the process. Since relativistic progressing rate is no longer invariant of inertial reference frames (i.e. no longer invariant of Lorentz Transformation) but experiences Transverse Doppler Effect after Lorentz Transformation, there is no way to separate relativistic time from the product of relativistic time and relativistic progressing rate. That is, clock time can never be calibrated to be relativistic time. Therefore, relativistic time is not our physical time but an artificial time introduced just for producing an artificial constant speed of light.

It was measured to be constant first and special relativity was formulated after to describe what has to happen to measurements of time and space for there to be a constant rate of energy propagation (the speed of light) in all inertial frames. The consistency of the speed of light in every inertial frame is not inferred from special relativity. Bassless assumption 2! Still no reasoning.

 

On the other hand, the status of a physical process such as the height of a burning candlestick is invariant of Lorentz Transformation because space dimensions perpendicular to the motion of the frame won't experience any relativistic effects. That is, clock time is the same observed in all inertial reference frames. If all clocks are set the same initial time and frequency in one inertial reference frame, then they are the same observed in all inertial reference frames. Therefore, even in the framework of special relativity, clock time i.e. our physical time is still absolute and universal. This has been perfectly demonstrated by the clocks on GPS satellites and ground which are synchronized not only relative to the ground frame, but also to each satellite frame.

GPS satellites are calibrated in agreement with relativity! Because length contraction doesn't apply to the spacial dimension perpendicular to to the motion of the observed object that somehow means time doesn't dilate either? Huh? Bassless assumptions numbers 3 and 4! Still nothing remotely resembling any kind of actual reasoning.

 

Your claim that the clock of an observer will have a different time from the moving clock is based on Einstein's wrong assumption that clock time is relativistic time. Then use the properties of relativistic time to predict the behavior of clock time. This is wrong. Let show you here. Before any comparison of the clock readings, we first set the two clocks (one is moving and the other is stationary) with the same reading and same frequency observed in the stationary frame. That is, they are synchronized according to both relativistic time and clock time in the stationary frame. Now let's see how the two events (xs, t, T) and (xm, t, T) be transformed from the stationary frame to the frame of the moving clock, where xs and xm are the x-coordinates of the stationary clock and moving clock respectively, t is the relativistic time, and T is the clock time (e.g. represented by the height if the clocks are burning candlesticks). After Lorentz Transformation, the two events become (xs', ts', T) and (xm', tm', T). We know relativistic times: ts' and tm', are no longer the same, but the clock time remain the same (because they are represented by the height of candlestick, perpendicular to the motion of the frame, won't experience any relativistic length contraction). That is, these two events are still synchronized according to clock time observed on the moving frame too. The problem of your claim is that you have never synchronized the clocks and simply assume that are identical relative to their own frame and use the property of relativistic time to predict their behavior. This is wrong.

Again claiming that clock time is not relativistic time and again claiming that a lack of length contraction in one spacial dimension that has noting to do with one that's contracted somehow means that time does dilate.

 

Regarding logical errors, if a theory is logically wrong, then no matter how many co-incidents people can find to support it, it is still wrong.

Yes, and your 'theory' is logically wrong and very stupid.