Mr. Quilling,
You continue to display your preconceived intellectual dishonesty, even after my reminders against it.
Also your preconceived exposition that says, "... the author's proposal contradicts the established understanding of time dilation ...,"
(1) When your statement fails to appreciate the premises stated in the author's paper, entitled, "The relative effect of phase shift on frequency invalidates time dilation II."
In particular, experiments with piezoelectric crystal oscillators have shown that due to the difference in relativistic effect, the resulting G-force distorts the frequency through a phase shift of the clock oscillation, showing a distorted time scale in line with the distorted wavelength of the wave, which shows an error in reading the clock time. Which is rather wrongly represented as time dilation.
Not appreciating the facts mentioned above, or not raising legitimate encounters against the tests mentioned in the author's paper, will be considered as acts of actual dishonesty by the commenter.
(2) Moreover, the commenter fails to appreciate that the author's paper ascribes the freedom of time to robbery. As recognized in the relativity paper. And relativity does not rule out classical abstract time, but arbitrarily relativizes time as normal which is subject to relativistic effects.
(3) Furthermore, the commenter fails to realize that previous experiments with time dilation by experimenters were incorrect and biased, as the author's paper notes, that physical wavelength distortions exactly correspond to conceptual time distortions; Through the relation λ∝T, while biased experimenters have not tried to find out that the wavelength λ is actually distorted and hence the distorted value of time T (usually t'), i.e. without distortion at wavelength λ, time (T) cannot be distorted. The warped wavelength λ is relevant here, not the time warp.
In addition, experimenters fail to realize that existential events invoke time from the conceptual progression of time, not the other way around. Because they made this deliberate mistake because they were too biased towards Einstein's statement of God, and not what proper science should be, although it was their natural duty as examiners of important scientific evidence.
(4) In addition to the above grounds, the paper contains many scientifically valid encounters that disprove the idea of time dilation, but they are not mentioned here to limit this answer.
Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, it appears that the commenter's comments are completely preconceived, on his own thoughts of relativity, and therefore he is absent from the facts stated in the author's paper and hence his arguments are against the author's paper. His complaint is that the author's proposal is inconsistent with time dilation. These comments by the commenter are based not only on guesses and assumptions, but also on the commenter's untrue, preconceived notions.
The commenter has failed to establish a valid scientific basis against the author's paper. Accordingly the above commenter is thrown in the dustbin and his complaint is dismissed.
The matter has now been settled.
Reference: https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.22492066.v2
- Soumendra Nath Thakur (Author).
